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

Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) is the first one that comes to mind. I think Algol also but that is based on a very dusty memory.

"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:cbafp8$88t$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "Tom Hester" <$$tom_at_metadata.com> wrote in message
> news:d07ad$40d8bf8b$45033832$16911_at_msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> > Another way to put this is that in a metamodel 'object' is the more
> > primitive concept and 'class' is defined in terms of object. So, class
is
> a
> > descendant of object in the inheritance hierarchy for the metamodel.
>
> OK, I guess I can see that perspective too. Can you point me to such a
> metamodel? How would you define class and object then? --dawn
>
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:cbac35$6h5$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > "Tom Hester" <$$tom_at_metadata.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1e2bb$40d8a0c7$45033832$7187_at_msgid.meganewsservers.com...
> > > > Yeah but in most OO languages a class IS an object, after all.
> > >
> > > If we have multiple and competing definitions, then it would be good
to
> > > preface one or more of these with an adjective. Of course a class can
> be
> > an
> > > object, just as a string can be, but that is somewhat beside the point
> > since
> > > we wouldn't define a digital video as something that can be an object
> > > either. I don't know all OO languages -- in what way is a class an
> object
> > > rather than a specification from which an object can be
reated? --dawn
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 23 2004 - 16:16:53 CEST