I guess there is probably not some deeper notion of type equivalence of classes at play here. Is this simply meant to be "instances of other objects from the same class/constructor"?
A more interesting question is whether the given pattern is supposed to support this kind of inter-object access. I guess the answer is no, but it did puzzle me for a minute.
Contact Details
bremner@unb.ca
Which part are you commenting on?
p. 89 v3.2.2
What's the problem?
I guess there is probably not some deeper notion of type equivalence of classes at play here. Is this simply meant to be "instances of other objects from the same class/constructor"?
A more interesting question is whether the given pattern is supposed to support this kind of inter-object access. I guess the answer is no, but it did puzzle me for a minute.