Talk:Has-a

this page should be nuked and merged into an orm topic. EvanCarroll 05:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge
Has-a seems to be a better name than Hasa (computer science) for the title, see also an analogous situation regarding Talk:Is-a. --Chris Howard (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good examples
Where are the good examples? The ones given for OOP are both said to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.64.142 (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No source or references
This article has been around since 2003, has no references, has been tagged as such since 2009 even though having 41 editors, making it a candidate for an article for deletion review. Otr500 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading
If a user were to read only the first bit of the article, they may take the given image as a good example and base their knowledge on this. It should be more explicitly stated that the examples given are fallacious and good examples should be offered in addition to the bad ones. Preferably before the bad examples appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.41.195 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of critique of the class diagram
The critique was deleted only because it was misplaced. I am not saying that the deleted comments were wrong, just that they should have been put somewhere else -- whether the deleted critique of the diagram is valid or not is immaterial to this discussion.

The diagram is either relevant to the article of “has-a” or it is not. Discussion of that relevancy belongs here in the Talk for this article, not in the article itself. But, yes, if the diagram is a bad example of composition/aggregation, then that diagram would not belong in the article, but only because it would not belong anywhere (except in a discussion of bad UML models).

Does the diagram show a good example/counter-example of “has-a”? If it does not, then the diagram should be replaced with one that does, not criticized in the article.

Discussion of whether the diagram is a misuse of composition/aggregation belongs neither in this article nor in this Talk. If the diagram is indeed misuse of composition/aggregation, then it is misuse of composition/aggregation in every article that links it. So, the discussion of whether the diagram is indeed such misuse should be in the Talk for that diagram. Go for it. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessarily complex
This article uses unnecessarily complex language, making it inaccessible to knowledge seekers. Chrisxfire (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)