Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Object Theory Message-ID: Date: 27 May 91 05:06:18 GMT References: <6569@gara.une.oz.au> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Distribution: comp Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California Lines: 25 In-reply-to: mwirth@gara.une.oz.au's message of 24 May 91 12:37:27 GMT >>>>> On 24 May 91 12:37:27 GMT, mwirth@gara.une.oz.au (Michael A. Wirth) said: Michael> Does anybody have any ideas on the definition of an object Michael> as described by set theory? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask the definition of set as described by object theory? Really, aren't sets more easily described by objects than vice versa? Trying the reverse, though, object theory might be broken down into: Class - the set of object types. Object - instantiations of classes. Property - the pieces of class definitions (which may be objects). Method - behaviours of classes. Relationship - how classes relate to one another. ... -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"