in reply to perspective and object-disorientation

Thankyou all for the comprehensive replies.
An especial thanks to fever, something really 'clicked' while reading that note.

The overall impression I get is that, "well its OK, but you probably dont want to". Thats fine, Im happy to keep playing around with it while looking for alternatives. My biggest problem was that there is not many places it would be considered acceptable to ask such a question, so it was slowly doing my head in!
I genuinely appreciate such esteemed monks took the time to entertain my musings.
To respond to a couple of monks:

markM and adrianh:

reblessing an object into a different package? A whole new avenue of perversion !
This could actually be what Im looking for. Each object shares the same abstract base-class and my hope is that the base-class will support the freeform structure above. The idea of changing states seems to sit well with my "perspectives".

pg

Yes, you are right. I think the term perspective I am using is, in most cases, the perspective of what the program does and a logical heirarchy can be organised. I have found object orientation to be a great organiser, but the program that raised the above question was dileberately being awkward, mostly for my own learning.

castaway

It sounds like you're thinking of writing a self-evolving program which can change its own objects as it likes... Fun..

Well, it beats staring at the TV ;)

 

To restate the obvious - this place rocks!

regards

  • Comment on Re: perspective and object-disorientation