I see it blue all right but I know it is composed of layers of gases
that are not blue.
..........................................................
If you see it as blue thats possibly because it is blue.
What color do you suggest it is, if not blue?
To take an example, water is blue; it intrinsecally absorbs and
scatter white light into blue color. The gazes in the high atmosphere
are not blue but their interaction and the bias in human eye make it
seen blue.
If you look at a peace or pure water, it is blue while it is not the
same for a peace of the gazes that compose the sky.
In that, if the skype was blue, it would color the perception of the
sun (which would become blueish).
********************************************
Why is this complete rubbish? I will explain:
If you take a molecule out of the sky and examine it in a different context
then you are no longer examining the sky.
You still haven't said what color the sky is in your world. All you do is
avoid giving any direct answer.
..
That is not what I said, I answer that indeed C++ *did* set out to
support the idea that an object was simply a region of storage, from
the very begining.
.............................................................................................
But C++ does not support the idea that an object is *simply* a region of
storage, if this were the case C++ would not support OOP.
It depends on what you put behind that /simply/.
If we limit to the phisical side, from the standard (as quoted) it is
a memory space and it has a type (and a lifetime). In some cases, RTTI
may require to put data in the object to retreive the type (ie. the
information at compile type is not sufficient for type resolution).
Thus, physically, an object is a piece of memory whatever you can
observe in term of (member) function you can apply on this piece of
memory.
****************************************************
This is not quoted from the standards this is a complete misinterpretation
by you.
The standards state 'an object is a region of storage'. There is no /simply/
in there at all, this has been introduced by you.
An objects member function has calling mechanisms that associate the member
function with the object. The C++ standards do not detail these calling
mechanisms because the language would then be tied to hardware that
supported these calling mechanisms. So it doesn't take a great deal of
intelligence to realise that C++ standard is the wrong doc to ref in the
first place.
And commenting code from 1980
<quote>
Clearly, the most important aspect of C with Classes - and later of C+
+ - was the class concept.
Many aspects of the C with Classes class concept can be observed by
examining a simple example
from [Stroustrup,1980a]:
class stack {
char s[SIZE]; /* array of characters */
char * min; /* pointer to bottom of stack */
char * top; /* pointer to top of stack */
char * max; /* pointer to top of allocated space */
void new(); /* initialization function (constructor) */
public:
void push(char);
char pop();
};
A class is a user-d efined data type. A class specifies the type of
the class members that define the
representation of a variable of the type (an object of the class),
specifies the set of operations
(functions) that manipulate such objects, and specifies the access
users have to these members.
Member functions are typically defined ''elsewhere:''
</quote>
That's pretty explicit. I won't quote the wholde document and I engage
you to read it.
What are you supposed to be proving with this quote?
Again , are you suggesting C++ does not support OOP?
It does not support *your* definition of OOP.
.............................................................
C++ does support my idea of OOP, the fact that C++ provides member
functions, inheretence , encapsulation and polymorphism is enough to
suggest
C++ supports OOP.
What is your idea of OOP? It's seems that your idea of OOP is that an
object
is a simple region of storage and nothing more.
In french, we have an epression which would translate as "Making the
donkey to have grain".
**************************************
Well we're not talking French here.
The color of difracted light.
There is also the factor that our human eyes perceives some coulours
better than other.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
So answer the question.
What is the color of the sky in your world? (during daytime)
You seem to be unable to determine which color the sky is.
Answered elsewhere.
***********************************
You haven't answered it correctly, if so please remind us which colour you
said it was.
You seem unable to answer this simple question.
You see a blue sky. I see difracted light. From my point of view, blue
is not an intrinsec attribute of the sky.
..........................................................
But the sky *is* blue , so how come you cannot see this?
You perceive blue light from the sky and deduce that the sky is blue.
Other people looked at flaty land and deduced eart was flat.
**********************************
The sky *is* blue.
You don't know what color it is.
Are you suggesting something is true? If so what?
.....................................................
It was you who made the statement I commented on re:
"Repeating something like a psittacidea doesn't make it true."
It was unclear what you were suggesting with this statement. Now it's
apparent you either didn't/don't know what you were talking about or you
are
deliberately trying to introduce confusion.
Your main claim, repeated ad nauseum, without backing, that member
functions are part of objects.
*************************************
I do have lots of backing, Bjarne Stroutsrup has written many papars that
describe calling member function on Objects.
There is thousands of papers online that support me.
Well that explains alot.
FYI the term you used ref "vulgarisation magazine" would generally be
considered to mean a pornography magazin
In french it is a synonym of simplification/popularisation.
I don't know how you call such magazine in english.
*********************************
Dunno maybe its one of those french things that cannot be translated
