🚀 go-pugleaf

jss@lucid.com (Jerry Schwarz) writes:

>In article <9300300.29980@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
>|> 
>|> As I noted in a previous article, I don't agree with Scott Turners belief
>|> that base class subobjects are objects. To me, these are absurd 
>|> consequences, and thus I conclude that the assumption used in deriving them
>|> must be flawed.
>
>Perhaps fjh would specify some of these "absurd consequences".

I meant the ones that I quoted in the article I was responding to
(maxtal = John MAX Skaller):

maxtal>	One consequence: abstract objects can exist.
maxtal>
maxtal>	Corollary: such objects have states not accessible via
maxtal>	the contiguous storage allocated for them.
maxtal>	(via virtual function calls)

To me, an abstract class is a class without any actual objects of that class,
so the idea of an "abstract object" seems to be an oxymoron. Similarly, the
idea that an object can have "state" that is not stored in its "storage" seems
to make a mockery of the whole idea of "storage".

I can understand the opposing view, but it seems to me that we are just
starting from different axioms. Anyhow, this discussion does not seem to be
very fruitful.

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!