Re: Is it legal code?
On Feb 22, 7:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1dd73ab-515d-4f99-896d-72e98c5d6e2d@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 22, 4:22 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
--"James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e966c4a5-f6d1-4528-9087-5bd1bd1aa67e@o8g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
--On Feb 21, 7:16 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
I'm not trying to say instance members aren't members of the
class. I acknowledge the class/object(not in the ISO std
context) relationship. A member declared in a class , is
*also* a member of an object instanciated from that class, and
vice versa, with the exception of class variables declared
static.
--OK. But it's not the vocabulary used by the C++ standard (nor
--by the Java standard), and I'm not sure what it buys you. From
--more recent searches, I find it is used in some circles. I find
--it leads to more confusion, unless it's only used as a sort of
--shorthand, where "member of object" is actually used to mean
--"member of the type of the object", and only used in cases where
--there is no ambiguity.
The Java documentation makes a clear definition of the term
object I repost the link as it seems to have been lost,
refhttp://java.sun.com/docs/glossary.html#O: "object The
principal building blocks of object-oriented programs. Each
object is a programming unit consisting of data (instance
variables) and functionality (instance methods). See also
class." This is absolutely clear, please don't try to
confuse things by suggesting its not the vocabularly used in
the standards.
--Except that the document you cite isn't part of the Java
--specification. It's just a document that someone wrote, with no
--official weight. (At least as I can see.) And it's
--contradictory, since for member, it says "A field or method of
--a class." No mention of object.
Don't be unresonable, its the official Java documentation.
I don't think it is. At least I saw nothing at the site to
suggest that it was part of the official specification.
From what is now the oracle site
There is a lot on Java at that site. All the way from the
official specification to tutorials.
If a member of a class is nonstatic it logically follows it is
also a menber of an object instanciated from the class. This
is not a contradicition.
I have no problem with using the wording "member of object"
informally, with the sense of "member of the type of the
object". There is obviously a link: the type of an object
defines the set of legal operations on it, and the set of
possible states.
[...]
Please do a word search for 'method' on this
document.http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/whatis.pdf
--Done. First note that the article is 20 years old; it dates to
--before Java corrupted the vocabulary.
:)
-- According to the
--definition of method Stroustrup uses in it, Java doesn't have
--methods, but (like C++) member functions. And while he might
--not like it, I'd be very surprised if Stroustrup didn't take
--this change in the meaning of method into account if he were
--writing this today.
--At any rate, it does sort of back up my intuitive feeling, that
--Stroustrup chose the word member function rather than method
--because it was radically different from a method in Smalltalk.
Yes ok but it's still generally accepted that member
function(in C++) and method(in other langs) is interchangeable
when comparing the languages
This harks back to the discussion on the meaning of STL.
Originally (and clearly in Stroustrup's mind in 1991), there was
a clear distinction between member functions and methods; Alan
Kay (the inventor of Smalltalk) also insists on the difference
(and doesn't consider C++ or Java "OO" languages). As you say,
however, most people use the terms as synonyms, and we've lost
an important distinction in the language.
[...]
I believe that argument is reserved for extreme fanatics, the
*normal* programming community are more relaxed with their
ideas of OOP concepts. :)
I'm not even sure that the "normal" programming community has
any opinions on OO, or even knows what it might be. People who
have learned OO through C++ obviously consider it an OO
language; a lot of people who learned OO through Java or C#
probably do as well. As does Booch. Bertrand Meyers, and most
of the Eiffel community along with him, doesn't. And Alan Kay
(who was the first to use the term) and the Smalltalk community
don't either. I think, in fact, that most OO fanatics would
deny that C++ supports OO (since they often seem to confuse
"supports" and "imposes").
--
James Kanze