Thanks for clarifying. I had most of it written before posting and had forgotten the code samples. My copy of Design Patterns is packed up for a move. I've update it to refer to C++.
Actually, people have visited, but few have stayed to read. My goal is to clarify the concept. I did plenty of research before writing this including asking Lieberman and others about it. I first wondered how everyone's notion could be wrong and doubted that my understanding was correct.
Clarifying the underlying concept is great. Self-style delegation gets to the heart of why "this" is dynamically bound in JavaScript, which is one of the language's most confusing features. Self-style delegation is also just generally cool and more people should know about it.
At the same time, getting hung up on terminology and trying to mandate a definition that goes against current usage just because it's older is a fool's errand and doesn't help.
Language is a social construct. It's very important for us to have consensus and agree on what words mean so that we can communicate efficiently. At the same time, there's nothing wrong about having definitions change over time.
"Car" used to mean a two-wheeled Celtic war chariot. It wouldn't be helpful to insist that it still mean that, and it's just mean to proclaim that everyone who uses "car" to mean "automobile" is wrong and doesn't understand the idea of war chariots.
If you agree with munificent, then perhaps you could soften your title and introduction to say that many people confuse what the GoF meant, not that the GoF are wrong.
Actually, people have visited, but few have stayed to read. My goal is to clarify the concept. I did plenty of research before writing this including asking Lieberman and others about it. I first wondered how everyone's notion could be wrong and doubted that my understanding was correct.
This is a term that others have attempted to clarify as well http://javalab.cs.uni-bonn.de/research/darwin/delegation.htm...