Ulrich Eckhardt said:
How is that relevant to a statement made in the context of _The C++ Object
Model_ which is different from the one used for OOP? Again, if you
restrict a statement to the C++ object model, in which (as you have been
told numerous times) the term "object" refers to something else than what
the "object" in OOP refers to, then your arguing in the general OOP
context is simply out of place.
How can the reason a member function exists in C++ not be relevant.
The C++ object model *is* restriced , not by me , by the fact the C++
standard does not go into implementation specifics. The tiny piece of the
document that describes the C++ object model is by no means a complete
description of how C++ objects work.
Additionally the C++ standard cannot and never will state that a member
function is not a member of an object.
You know, there are reasons the C++ object
model defines an object as it does, because that has many subtle
consequences that only become apparent when looking at the whole standard.
To me though, it seems that you don't even know half of it, considering
the knowledge about e.g. member function pointers you showed elsethreads.
The C++ is does not define an object in an opposite context from an OOP
object, the C++ is very carefull not to do this becuase it would directly
imply C++ did not support OOP.
I don't need to know what the rest of the standards say, and by the looks of
thing I don't want to if they cannot make a clear distintion between objects
of a UDT and objects at compiler level. I cannot believe that has still not
been sorted after all those years.
Pauly, what you are repeatedly doing is taking a statement made in one
context and proving it wrong in a different context. However, that proves
nothing! You just didn't reason coherently because by transplanting the
statement to a different context you also changed its meaning, so any
proof doesn't verify or falsify the original statement.
Im not changing any context. Im talking cleary about objects in the sense of
OOP.
Also, that is the reason that people call you a troll, you are repeatedly
being told that but not only fail to apply that information but even
violently and insultingly argue against anyone that points out your
incoherent arguing. The question that comes up whether that is
intentional, which would would qualify you as a troll.
This is the problem this attitude that I 'am being told' and I don't listen.
You don''t seem to understand that I am telling you something, its you that
is wrong here not me.
A member function is called so because it is a member of a object.
What else is would it be a member of? Do you want to suggest its a member of
a class again, please do so I can once again prove that a C++ class doesn't
even exist at runtime.
The very fact that you call me a troll is in itself an insult , I have not
insulted you and to suggest I have been violent towards you is just
laughable.
When I have a large group of morons all ganging up on me and not only
insulting me , but my recently dead mom, and continuing to insult her after
I said.
I am quite within my right to give some back. So don't give me that one
sided nonsense.
And also you seem to forget the original argument that started with numerous
insults towards me.
If you think you can insult me in a way that is acceptable to this group
then you're wrong. AN insult is an inult whether it a nasty fuckin swearword
is used or not. Grow Up!