Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!oresoft!dan
From: dan@oresoft.uu.net (Daniel Elbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: OO terminology (Was: OO Design books)
Keywords: OOP, books
Message-ID: <1989Sep21.185448.13515@oresoft.uu.net>
Date: 21 Sep 89 18:54:48 GMT
References: <583@calmasd.Prime.COM> <4557@orca.WV.TEK.COM> <1333@tukki.jyu.fi>
Reply-To: dan@oresoft.uu.net (Daniel Elbaum)
Organization: Oregon Software, Portland, OR
Lines: 26

In article <1333@tukki.jyu.fi> markku@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative) writes:
:In article <4557@orca.WV.TEK.COM> brucec@demiurge.WV.TEK.COM (Bruce Cohen) writes:
:> [...]
:>(I'd much rather say "superclass", than "immediately ancestral base class")
:> ...

:I would also prefer 'subclass' to 'derived class': if a class X consists
:of an array of class Y objects, say, equipped with some member functions,
:then one could also like to say that X is "derived" from Y.

'super-' and 'sub-' class terminology can introduce confusion.
If X is a a base class of Y, then a Y is an X but not vice-versa,
and so X is the more general of the two.  On the other hand,
Y is a superset of X; every Y has an X in it, so you could say
that X is a subclass of Y.

The 'base' and 'derived' terms are unambiguous and adequate.  I
find geneological terminology more useful, under which X is the
'parent' of Y and any base class of X is a 'grandparent'.  After
all, kinship structure is the basis for our notion of hierarchy
and inheritance.

-- 
Spa link snot the temper tent, a few cannery doubt lowed.

({uunet,tektronix,reed,sun!nosun,osu-cis,psu-cs}!oresoft!(dan)@oresoft.uu.net)