Re: c.d.theory glossary -- definition of "class"

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40d0aaa5$0$48959$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> --------------- " PUNTER: Good morning.
> Glossary 0.0.4: RECEPTIONIST: Good morning, sir. Can I help you?
> june 16, 2004 PUNTER: Well, I'd like to have an argument,
>
> --------------- please."
> -- ARGUMENT SKIT - Graham Chapman & John Cleese
>

<snip>
> [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)
>
> note:
> Other definitons welcome, this goes for the rest as well,
> of course.
>
> Some use 'class' as having exposed data.
> Please be explicit about this if you do so.

I really don't like the "A class is what ..." definition, especially since folks like Date keep asking why the OO folks are so confused on what a class is -- is it a variable, for example? I would like to make it clear that it is metadata. I don't just mean that the source code for the class is metadata -- the class is metadata. Here is a definition I just read in Systems Analysis & Design: An Object-Oriented Approach with UML by Dennis, Wixom, and Tegarden

"A class is the template we use to define objects."

This leaves the meatier definition to "objects" but at least it states more clearly what a class is.

Additionally, what are the biggest issues with identifying a class as a type specification? Putting it together, I'd say:

[Class]
Metadata that provides a template for software objects. Object Type specification

 Then an objection might be -- "is it a template or a specification" and I think those are close enough that it is both. --dawn Received on Tue Jun 22 2004 - 21:42:30 CEST