object and object types

[Paul]

Yes, a class is a type, just like an enumeration. A type is not an object.
An object type is also not an object, but a type. Instantiating it will
yield an object.

Simple thing, at least for those willing to understand.

Consider the following

Cat frisky;

frisky is an object yet frisky is also an object type.
frsiky is region of storage yet frisky is also an identifier.
frisky is also a Cat type.

An object is an object type, that is why it's called an object.
An integer is an integer type , this is why we call it an integer
etc etc.

There is no instantiation here, yet there is an object.
The object declared here is defined by the definition of its type, in the
class Cat.

If Cat has an Eat() member function then frisky has an Eat() member
function.
If Cat has a Meow() member function then so does frisky. And so on.

The term object is not simply a block of memory. Whether the inconsistent
standards state this or not, which they don't.

 

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

Consider the following

Cat frisky;

frisky is an object yet frisky is also an object type.
Wrong.

frsiky is region of storage yet frisky is also an identifier.

Wrong due to oversimplification.

frisky is also a Cat type.
Wrong.

An object is an object type, that is why it's called an object.
Wrong.

An integer is an integer type , this is why we call it an integer
etc etc.

Wrong.

Types are not objects. Objects are not types. You can say that objects
have a type, but that is all.

There is no instantiation here, yet there is an object.

The result of instantiating a class is an object, which is what happens
there.

The term object is not simply a block of memory. Whether the
inconsistent standards state this or not, which they don't.

Fail.

 

[Öö Tiib]

Consider the following

Cat frisky;

frisky is an object yet frisky is also an object type.

No, frisky is an object yet Cat is an object type. Cat is type of all
objects whose object type is Cat, including frisky.

I wonder if you try to entertain us with it or you seriously do not
understand something of it or you are forbidden to agree with others
about anything?

 

[Michael Doubez]

Consider the following

Cat frisky;

frisky is an object yet frisky is also an object type.
frsiky is region of storage yet frisky is also an identifier.
frisky is also a Cat type.

Nice syllogism with semantic shift.

Let me rephrase your premise

Cat frisky;

frisky is a name designating an object of type Cat.
frisky is an identifier for an entity which has the property of having
a region of storage.
frisky has a type which is Cat class.

An object is an object type, that is why it's called an object.
An integer is an integer type , this is why we call it an integer
etc etc.

An object is an instance of the object type, that's is why we call it
an object.
An integer is an instance of an integer type, that's is why we call it
an integer.
etc tec.

There is no instantiation here, yet there is an object.

What do you call instantiation ?

It is a declaration and a definition. Depending on the context, frisky
has either static or automatic storage duration.
For automatic duration, the instantiation is at least on the point of
defintion.
For static duration, it is a bit more complicated but, in short, it is
before main() for globals.

The object declared here is defined by the definition of its type, in the
class Cat.

Its type is not *in the class Cat* but it is the class Cat.

If Cat has an Eat() member function then frisky has an Eat() member
function.

If Cat has an Eat() member function, the expression frisky.Eat() will
be resolved by determining frisky is of type Cat and that Cat has a
member function matching Eat().

[snip]

The term object is not simply a  block of memory. Whether the inconsistent
standards state this or not, which they don't.

Is it the 'simply' that bothers you. In this case, I agree since an
object has properties not necessarily carried within the region of
storage; namely:
- a name (frisky)
- a storage duration (automatic, static or dynamic)
- a type (Cat) - which may requires some data in the region of
storage for polymorphic types

Everybody (the standard included) will agree that:
An object *is* a region of storage and *has* properties.

The relevant part of the standard (§1.8/1) has been abundantly quoted
by you and others.

 

[Paul]

Wrong.

The only person WRONG here is YOU

 

[Paul]

"Paul" wrote in message
Paul, I would like to politely suggest that you learn the *differences*
(yes, they ARE different) between classes & objects and object types &
objects before you continue to damage your reputation in threads of this
nature.

Jarrick I would like to poltely suggest that you go an shove your head up
your ass. But I dont because you are obviously intellectually handicapped in
some way.

 

[Paul]

Consider the following

Cat frisky;

frisky is an object yet frisky is also an object type.

No, frisky is an object yet Cat is an object type. Cat is type of all
objects whose object type is Cat, including frisky.



...................

You say no then you go on to agree that frisky in a object type re:
"whose object type is Cat, including frisky".

You people seem like complete an utter unreasonable idiots. You have no
regard for what is correct and don't seem to care, therefor it is poiontless
having any discussion with you.

 

[Paul]

Consider the following

Cat frisky;

frisky is an object yet frisky is also an object type.
frsiky is region of storage yet frisky is also an identifier.
frisky is also a Cat type.

Nice syllogism with semantic shift.

Let me rephrase your premise

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

It doesn't need rephrased by YOU.
It was perfectly clear as it was originally phrased..

You have already displayed you need to rephrase things to suit yourself in
numerous other postings.
It is clear that YOU are totally confused about what an object is.


;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Cat frisky;

frisky is a name designating an object of type Cat.
frisky is an identifier for an entity which has the property of having
a region of storage.
frisky has a type which is Cat class.

An object is an object type, that is why it's called an object.
An integer is an integer type , this is why we call it an integer
etc etc.

An object is an instance of the object type, that's is why we call it
an object.
An integer is an instance of an integer type, that's is why we call it
an integer.
etc tec.

..........................................................................


This displays the moronicness of you senseless and unreasonable argument.
You suggest it is possible to instantiate an instance of a built-in integer
type, this just shows that you are completely clueless.

<snip>

 

[Michael Doubez]

Nice syllogism with semantic shift.

Let me rephrase your premise

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

It doesn't need rephrased by YOU.
It was perfectly clear as it was originally phrased..

I have no doubt you prefer an imprecise wording behind which the
polemic can spring.

You have already displayed you need to rephrase things to suit yourself in
numerous other postings.
It is clear that YOU are totally confused about what an object is.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Cat frisky;

frisky is a name designating an object of type Cat.
frisky is an identifier for an entity which has the property of having
a region of storage.
frisky has a type which is Cat class.


An object is an instance of the object type, that's is why we call it
an object.
An integer is an instance of an integer type, that's is why we call it
an integer.
etc tec.

.........................................................................

This displays the moronicness of you senseless and unreasonable argument.
You suggest it is possible to instantiate an instance of a built-in integer
type, this just shows that you are completely clueless.

ISO/IEC 14882 doesn't use instance for objects (except in a example)
and prefers initialisation. But ISO/IEC 9899 (C standard) on which it
is based does.

3.14/1 object
region of data storage in the execution environment, the contents of
which can represent
values

2.6.4/5 For such an object that does not have a variable length array
type, its lifetime extends from entry into the block with which it is
associated until execution of that block ends in any way. (Entering an
enclosed block or calling a function suspends, but does not end,
execution of the current block.) If the block is entered recursively,
a new instance of the object is created each time. The initial value
of the object is indeterminate. If an initialization is specified for
the object, it is performed each time the declaration is reached in
the execution of the block; otherwise, the value becomes indeterminate
each time the declaration is reached.

An instance in C++ as in the more general OOP sense is an identity
which is often identified with the storage location. (Example:
identity relation compares pointers to check two instances are the
same).

 

[Paul]

I have no doubt you prefer an imprecise wording behind which the
polemic can spring.


ISO/IEC 14882 doesn't use instance for objects (except in a example)
and prefers initialisation. But ISO/IEC 9899 (C standard) on which it
is based does.

3.14/1 object
region of data storage in the execution environment, the contents of
which can represent
values

2.6.4/5 For such an object that does not have a variable length array
type, its lifetime extends from entry into the block with which it is
associated until execution of that block ends in any way. (Entering an
enclosed block or calling a function suspends, but does not end,
execution of the current block.) If the block is entered recursively,
a new instance of the object is created each time. The initial value
of the object is indeterminate. If an initialization is specified for
the object, it is performed each time the declaration is reached in
the execution of the block; otherwise, the value becomes indeterminate
each time the declaration is reached.

An instance in C++ as in the more general OOP sense is an identity
which is often identified with the storage location. (Example:
identity relation compares pointers to check two instances are the
same).

Please feel free to Misquote any nonsense you like , IT is 100% clear that
you are incapable of accepting any form of technical correctness and you
have repeatedly misinterpeted the standards.

 

[RaZiel]

The only person WRONG here is YOU

No, really - you are...

 

[RaZiel]

You say no then you go on to agree that frisky in a object type re:
"whose object type is Cat, including frisky".

You people seem like complete an utter unreasonable idiots. You have no
regard for what is correct and don't seem to care, therefor it is
poiontless having any discussion with you.

learn to read

 

[Paul]

No, really - you are...

In the context of C++ programming what I have said is correct
You state it's wrong but with no reasonable argument or evidence to support
your claim.
You either
a) are unable to prove this is incorrect
b) don't care whether it's correct.


The case being b) then I suggest that you are a moronic idiot with a
complete disregard for technical correctness. And there is a good chance the
case is b)

 

[James Kanze]

The only person WRONG here is YOU

Except that he can't be the only person wrong, since everyone
but you agrees with him. Either everyone is wrong but you, or
you are wrong.

 

[Paul]

Except that he can't be the only person wrong, since everyone
but you agrees with him. Either everyone is wrong but you, or
you are wrong.

If *everyone* is wrong then so be it.

....................................................................................................................
In the context of C++ programming what I have said is correct
You state it's wrong but with no reasonable argument or evidence to support
your claim.
You either
a) are unable to prove this is incorrect
b) don't care whether it's correct.


The case being b) then I suggest that you are a moronic idiot with a
complete disregard for technical correctness. And there is a good chance the
case is b)

 

[Juha Nieminen]

Jarrick I would like to poltely suggest that you go an shove your head up
your ass. But I dont because you are obviously intellectually handicapped in
some way.

I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously with comments like that.

If your sincere intention is not to troll, what you are doing is rather
counter-productive.

 

[Drew Lawson]

"Paul" wrote in message

Your idea of politeness is almost as whacked as your idea of objects and
types.

I have to admit I cannot decide whether you are a bona fide troll or just
plain clueless. Your rudeness suggests the former.

I'm on the fence deciding between performance art and a paranoid
fixation, not that those are mutualy exclusive. Either way, it's
pretty clear he isn't here to learn anything.

 

[Paul]

"Paul" wrote in message

Your idea of politeness is almost as whacked as your idea of objects and
types.

I have to admit I cannot decide whether you are a bona fide troll or just
plain clueless. Your rudeness suggests the former.

Regards,

Jarrick

I imagine you as a little spotty, skinny and specky computer geek. I imagine
at some point in your life to have tried to be overly intellictual with
someone and they simply told you to '**** off'.

Dismissed!

 

[Paul]

I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously with comments like that.

If your sincere intention is not to troll, what you are doing is rather
counter-productive.

'security' and 'blanket' mean anything to you?

 

[Ebenezer]

Except that he can't be the only person wrong, since everyone
but you agrees with him.  Either everyone is wrong but you, or
you are wrong.

Sports announcers use phrases like "a Michael Jordan" or
"a Brett Favre" when describing who a young player reminds
them of. I'm not sure if this is what the OP is getting at,
but there is a sense in which people (who are good at
something) form a type based on their lives. They break the
mold and redefine the concept of what makes a talented or
kind or foolish person. I'm wary of making a parallel between
people and objects. I believe people are created on a G-d
image/pattern and physical harm to a person is an assault on
G-d. At any rate it seems the OP is talking in philosophical terms.



Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
http://wnd.com