RPG wrote:
> She equated the terms "object" and "pattern."
I am not surprised, specially when you consider that
some self-proclaimed patterns experts in the software
community, many with several "refereed articles", websites,
and/or books to their names, equate patterns with:
classes, objects, functions, code generation templates,
rules, system of rules and/or reusable components
Instead of equating them with **relationships** among these things.
In many cases, language syntax and/or features have sometimes
published as "patterns". Again, without any references to
language syntax or language feature **relationships** to
concrete software elements: classes, objects, functions,
templates (and/or macros), rules, system of rules components.
In her defense, she is probably a _visionary_ editor just
for having seen something "special" in patterns,
- Mike
_______________________________________________
patterns-discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/patterns-discussion
