| HasReviewSummary
|
The reason I propose to reject this patter … The reason I propose to reject this pattern is that it is decidedly silly.
The authors say that "The definition of the Hybrid Class is the union (OR) of the definitions of the disjoint classes."
The reason is that the two classes A and B are subsumed by their union A V B. What the pattern does is that we leave implicit what the '''proper''' type of the individual is: we simply do not know whether the individual is in A or B.
However, any individual instance of A V B will always be either in A or in B, but '''never''' in both (since this is what disjointness specifies).
The example therefore does not applies. If Animal_Plant is defined as the union of Animal and Plant (both disjoint) then there still exist no Animal_Plant instances... and this is what the pattern supposedly tries to solve. hat the pattern supposedly tries to solve.
|
