Re: c.d.theory glossary -- definition of "class"
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:11:25 +0200
Message-ID: <40e0c1b6$0$65807$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
x wrote:
>>IMO class is acceptable when it means "reference type".
>
> How about using this:
> - types and operators when refering to values and operations with values.
> - class and methods when refering to variables and operations *with*
> variables.
I'll try to distill something out of this without too much dictating, ok?. Not the next few days, though (busy).
> Oh, the essence - such an archaic word ... :-)
> How could one obtain the essence ? :-)
> It's what is left after everything is gone. :-)
:-)
existentialism revisited.
> I also suggest this entry:
> [OO]
> 1) other orthogonal (not orthogonadic :-)
> 2) object oriented
> 2' eggs :-) (for making pizza :-)
>
>>I never heard about communicators.
>
> You are a communicator. :-)
Are you sure?
> This depends on what meaning do you use for type.
> You mean Type as in c.d.theory glossary ?
If the glossary does not provide a description of 'type' Alfredo and other regular posters can live with, the glossary is at fault (ok somebody should provide a copy&pasteable one). Received on Tue Jun 29 2004 - 03:11:25 CEST