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

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40e0c1b6$0$65807$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> x wrote:
>
> > Alfredo Novoa 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).

And then for the definition of class we will just put "See Type"? --dawn Received on Wed Jun 30 2004 - 02:09:29 CEST