Re: Creating recursive customization types / widgets

[Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>]

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

> Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:
>
>> Neat.  I have no idea why it's called `child' and the resulting
>> use of `child' in (define-widget 'foo 'child ...) does not look
>> particularly intuitive, but I can't think of anything better either.
>
> Because it has a single child widget, and the new widget basically
> behave like the child, except for allowing recursion.

Actually, now I remember.  I though of it as a potential base class
for all widgets with a single child.  But it is not entirely
appropriate for that.

> I called it 'recursive' and 'delayed' under development.
>
> It is a common pattern in OOP.  Having an object that wraps another
> object, delegates message to the other object, and thus acts like a
> proxy.  So 'wrapper', delegator' or 'proxy' could be used as well.

My current favorite name would be 'proxy', but I do not feel strongly
about it.  What do you think?