> Given that I do not need to implement it, it is clearly not a design pattern.
We have a definitional disagreement: this is a bad definition. Here's what I think, straight off page 3 of GoF:
> A design pattern names, abstracts and identifies the key aspects of a common design structure that make it useful for creating a reusable [object-oriented] design.
Composite is a great counter example to your definition of a design pattern, because it is an example of an important pattern (IMO the most important in GoF) in which no special implementation is required.
PS. Calm down and stop accusing people on the internet of bad faith
The definition you quoted matches the one I gave. And as I already said, composite does require an actual design pattern. It isn't just "use properties", I think you might want to re-read the book.
P.S. If you want people to think you are making a good faith attempt at discussion, making passive aggressive douche notes like this is counter productive.
We have a definitional disagreement: this is a bad definition. Here's what I think, straight off page 3 of GoF:
> A design pattern names, abstracts and identifies the key aspects of a common design structure that make it useful for creating a reusable [object-oriented] design.
Composite is a great counter example to your definition of a design pattern, because it is an example of an important pattern (IMO the most important in GoF) in which no special implementation is required.
PS. Calm down and stop accusing people on the internet of bad faith