Replies to replies.
Eric W. Biederman
28 Oct 1998 13:28:37 -0600
>>>>> "TF" == Thomas Mork Farrelly <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
TF> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, David Manifold wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Thomas M. Farrelly wrote:
>> > So 'foo.c' will be all over a reflective system.
>> To anyone: There seem to be many different kinds and extents of
>> reflection. Is it possible to clarify and distinguish these?
TF> I see reflection as the ability to modify self. In a software system,
TF> reflection must in some way be implemented. Whether or not this reflection
TF> mechanism should be reflective is an option. If it is, the reflective
TF> system could redefine itself to not beeing reflective, from where there is
TF> no way back. This way a non-reflective system is sort of a subset of a
TF> reflective one. Also is should be possible to spesify a transition from
TF> one reflective system to another without going breaking the boundaries of
TF> the initial reflective framework.
Thank you this helps put some things in perspective for me.
I like the definition:
-- Reflection is the ability to modify self.
-- Anyone else are there any problems with that definition?
Wether or not this reflection mechanism should be reflective is an option.
Could actually be restated as:
The reflective system may not be part of the self....
The concrete example I get from redefining a reflective system to not be relfective,
is developing a program in a forth system (or in any interactive intense system),
and the removing the forth command line (the development environment).