Re: c.d.theory glossary

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:49:48 +0200
Message-ID: <40825d4d$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote:

>>...[Class]
>>A class is what provides a name and a place for
>>the abstract behavior of a set of objects
>>said to belong to the class. (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 12)

>
> I don't care for the "what provides" -- would rather see either "a class is
> a specification ..." or "a class is a software component..." or something
> more concrete

...specification... would add information on how the class is capable to provide what it provides. While that is relevant to the maker of the class, it is IMHO not relevant to something being a class or not.
...component... would add component-based software connotations. Please not.

> And how about "abstract attributes and behavior"?

Why restrict it to abstract attributes and behavior? Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 05:49:48 CDT

Re: c.d.theory glossary - Class