Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!lfcs!db
From: db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: object-oriented this, that, and the other thing
Message-ID: <1253@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 30 Nov 89 11:46:24 GMT
References: <2426@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <190@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <1561@novavax.UUCP> <76915@linus.UUCP> <984@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1959@tukki.jyu.fi> <1115@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U
Lines: 14

In article <1115@castle.ed.ac.uk> I wrote:
>Some people have said that objects contain their member functions.  This
>isn't true of any OO language I've seen.  In these languages, classes
>contain member functions and each object (intuitively) contains a pointer
>to its class.

Some people have kindly pointed out that there are object oriented languages
in which objects really do contain their member functions, e.g. Emerald,
Display Postcript and (possibly) Self.

Dave Berry, Laboratory for Foundations      db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
    of Computer Science, Edinburgh Uni.	    <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!db

"leIsANewEntertainment:GuerillaWarStruggleIsANewEntertainment:GuerillaWarStrug"


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com