Re: The Foundation of OO (XDb)

> I think for you a review of basic OOP is in order...unless...you use some
> language I'm not familiar with where they use the terms the way you do (??)

I want to redefine OO, I think it should be as below:

An object represents a thing: a value, a word, a person, a car, a sound, a picture, a movie, a smell, a feeling, an idea, the concept of a Marble, Marble1, Marble2, Marble3, etc. An object (Marble) can have instances (M1, M2, M3). An instance (M1) is an object that has a class (Marble). A class (Marble) is an object that has an instance (M1).

An object's definition is orthogonal because the thing it represents is orthogonal. This orthogonality becomes apparent when object M1 has instances(M1a, M1b, M1c). Object M1 is now both an instance and a class.

The concept of an object can also be described by the mathematical concept of a relation. Set A = {M1, M2, M3} // Function(f) Domain Set B = {Marble} // Function(f) Range
The relation between Domain and Range is: Marble = f(a) or in oo-terminology, the class of any object in the Domain is Marble.

An object inherits the non-overridden properties and methods of its ancestor classes.
An object can override/add properties and methods.

(www.xdb1.com) Received on Thu Jun 13 2002 - 07:37:46 CEST