Re: Help with OO Terminology
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:15:26 -0400
Message-ID: <2dpN8.5331$_h5.918255_at_news20.bellglobal.com>
"James" <jraustin1_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6e74506.0206092019.720f1fbb_at_posting.google.com...
> I was wondering if some has already created terminology to communicate
> the following concepts. If not, suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Suppose we have objects ... A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, ...
> where each is an instance of the previous.
What do you mean by this? An object cannot have instances, only classes may have instances.
> The below class/instance hierarchy describes the same
> where the class of each object is shown within square brackets[].
>
> B [A]
> C [B]
> D [C]
> E [D] <- frame of reference
> F [E]
> G [F]
> H [G]
>
> If object E is the frame of reference,
> is the below terminology appropriate?
>
> ...B, are "ancestor classes" of E.
> C is the "grand class" of E.
> D is the "immediate class" of E.
>
> F is an "immediate instance" of E.
> G is a "grand instance" of E.
> H, ... are "descandant instances" of E.
>
> TIA
Received on Tue Jun 11 2002 - 18:15:26 CEST