Re: The Foundation of OO (XDb)

What positive ends do you aspire to meet by confusing your vocabulary?

Everybody already knows that object = instance of a class. No need to get ïnto any debates over *that*...

If you would like some term for some thingy inbetween objects and classes (although for the life of me I can't understand what you would want that thing to be) then why not invent a new word for it instead of trying to reuse terms that we are all already very familiar with the semantics of?

Best Regards

/Mats Helander

James <jraustin1_at_hotmail.com> skrev i diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:a6e74506.0206122207.5d7a66de_at_posting.google.com ...
> "Daniel T." <notdanielt3_at_gte.net> wrote in message news:<notdanielt3-888B44.13123811062002_at_news.bellatlantic.net>...
> > jraustin1_at_hotmail.com (James) wrote:
> >
> > >The object is the fundamental atomic thing.
> > >An object can represents anything: a number, a word, a person, a car,
> > >a sound, a picture, a movie, a smell, a feeling, an idea, etc.
> > >An object can have instances.
> > >An instance is an object that has a class.
> > >A class is an object that has instances.
> > >
> > >An object inherits the non-overridden properties
> > >and methods of its ancestor classes.
> > >An object can override/add properties and methods.
> > >
> > >(www.xdb1.com)
> >
> > Was there some point you were trying to make? Because if there was, I
> > missed it...

>
> Proposing a slight modification of the current conventional OO Model
> which I believe will have a significant positive impact. The slight
> change is that an instance can have instances and so on.