From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Which wastes more time? (Was Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/09/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 389032488 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: spark23.ecf Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <35F42CAC.6F566DC7@s054.aone.net.au> <35F4F454.542516E4@s054.aone.net.au> Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <35F4F454.542516E4@s054.aone.net.au>, Loryn Jenkins wrote: > >Patrick Doyle wrote: >> >> You have a good point that if you commit to the PERSON-CAR_OWNER >> thing then you've locked yourself out of modelling someone who >> sells his car. So, it's a design decision. If you're not going >> to model that, then the extra complexity of the role pattern >> may not be justified. > >Tell me something: How would you envisage PERSON <-- CAR_OWNER working >together within a program? I gave an example earlier of a reporting program which generates a report based on a moment in time. If a person sells his car, he will either do so before or after this program is run; in either case, if he is a CAR_OWNER at the start, he will be a CAR_OWNER for the duration of the program. If this is not the situation, then I agree that modelling CAR_OWNER is not appropriate. -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.toronto.edu