RE: [Rails-devel] Re: Suggested object model for core generic framework

[Erik V. <eri...@hc...>]

>  Using the name "minor" for
> "private companies" would be very confusing, as several games
> have both (1841, 1844, 1854).

Sorry for this unjustified diatribe, I see that the model
has a proper Private class.
Which makes me think that some Privates come with other objects:
shares, tiles (e.g. 1800), trains (18GA), share exchange options, 
tile/token laying options. Should we model that?
 
> But what is then the distinguishing feature of a Minor company?
> Minors come with 1 (1835/37, 18EU), 2 (1854) and 5 (1826, 
> 1841) shares.
> Some can convert to major companies (1826), others can merge into
> new major companies (1835/37, 18EU, 1841) or new minor companies
> (1854: "local" (1-share) to "major local railway" (2-share)). 
> 
> IMHO, the only fundamental division is between companies that 
> can be traded
> (i.e. shares can be sold: most if not all of the >1-share companies)
> and those that can't (most if not all of the 1-share companies).
> Perhaps that distinction warrants subclassing, but I'm not sure.

Come to think of it, another distinction is share value. 
Maybe we have a true hierarchy:

Company (no value, shares can't be traded).
   |
TradableCompany (fixed value, can be traded; e.g. 1854 "major local
companies" which have 2 50% shares).
   |
StockMarketCompany (variable value, represented on the stock market).

(I gladly give my names for shorter, more catchy ones).
Each subclass adds functionality here.

There seems to be a 1:1 relationship between no-value and 1-share
(maybe I should say: no share), but the endless creativity of 18xx
designers makes me a bit wary of counting on even that correspondence....

Erik.