«

<quote>
So, in C++ an object is a very primitive thing; just a region of memory.
Note that this region might not have an address (think of temporaries)
</quote>


This was used in the context of an attempt tojustify the argument that an
object cannot contain member functions.
I state that what Francis Glassboro is implying here is nothing more than
complete nonsense for the reasons I give below.

An object type is defined by its class and can be defined to contain member
functions.
A member function is specifically connected to the object on which it was
called.

The C++ standards state that an object is a region of memory but they do not
state that it is JUST a region of memory. The C++ standards then go on to
state that objects can contain member subobjects, these are defined within
the class. The fact that the standard goes on to describe or define objects
in greater detail is evidence that the C++ obviously do not imply an object
is JUST a region of storage.

I repeat....An object is definied in the standard as a region, not JUST a
region, of memory.
If you choose to interpret an object as JUST a region of memory, as you
clearly have then It's a blatent misinterpretation from the standards.
lets just add words in to change the meaning of the standards when it suits
us shall we?s


If the object type is defined to contain a member function then all
instances of that object has the said member function. The calling
mechanisms or where that function is stored in a programs memory is
irrellevant.
It is technically wrong to suggest that an member function is not part of an
object. You attempt to prove this by trying to prove that a member function
does not live within an objects memory.


The fact that a member functions is defined in the objects class definition
is suffice to support my generally accepted view.
Also note that, altohugh you refuse to acknowledge anything other than the
C++ standards here, there is a massive amount of OOP documents and reference
that supportmy terminology.

* Paul, on 06.01.2011 16:25:

Don't start threads with the name of a person in the subject line.

Otherwise everybody will plink you.

That means, that all your articles are automatically sent to the big bit bucket
in the sky, by the newsreader software, so that they are not even seen.

"plink" and "plonk" both means taking the abovementioned measure, but the words
carry different connotations.

"plink" is the sound of a lightweight troll being flushed down the toilet.

"plonk" is used for a troll that has gained some respect, or for a person that
one just disagrees so violently with that one wishes to avoid confrontation,
i.e. a somewhat heavier mass being flushed down.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

--
blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>

* Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, on 06.01.2011 17:01:
> * Paul, on 06.01.2011 16:25:
>
> Don't start threads with the name of a person in the subject line.
>
> Otherwise everybody will plink you.
>
> That means, that all your articles are automatically sent to the big bit bucket
> in the sky, by the newsreader software, so that they are not even seen.
>
> "plink" and "plonk" both means taking the abovementioned measure, but the words
> carry different connotations.
>
> "plink" is the sound of a lightweight troll being flushed down the toilet.
>
> "plonk" is used for a troll that has gained some respect, or for a person that
> one just disagrees so violently with that one wishes to avoid confrontation,
> i.e. a somewhat heavier mass being flushed down.

Just adding to that, Paul, I don't see your articles in
[alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++], but I see lots of replies to them, so apparently I
have already plinked you in that newsgroup -- or plonked you, whatever.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

--
blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>

"Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+> wrote in
message news:ig4pce$9lc$...
>* Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, on 06.01.2011 17:01:
>> * Paul, on 06.01.2011 16:25:
>>
>> Don't start threads with the name of a person in the subject line.
>>
>> Otherwise everybody will plink you.
>>
>> That means, that all your articles are automatically sent to the big bit
>> bucket
>> in the sky, by the newsreader software, so that they are not even seen.
>>
>> "plink" and "plonk" both means taking the abovementioned measure, but the
>> words
>> carry different connotations.
>>
>> "plink" is the sound of a lightweight troll being flushed down the
>> toilet.
>>
>> "plonk" is used for a troll that has gained some respect, or for a person
>> that
>> one just disagrees so violently with that one wishes to avoid
>> confrontation,
>> i.e. a somewhat heavier mass being flushed down.
>
> Just adding to that, Paul, I don't see your articles in
> [alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++], but I see lots of replies to them, so
> apparently I have already plinked you in that newsgroup -- or plonked
> you, whatever.
>
>
> Cheers & hth.,
>
> - Alf
>
> --
Goodbye Alf have a nice life.

"Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+> wrote in
message news:ig4p18$6fr$...
>* Paul, on 06.01.2011 16:25:
>
> Don't start threads with the name of a person in the subject line.
>
Why not that if that is the subject of the thread?

Paul wrote:
>
> An object type is defined by its class and can be defined to
> contain member functions.
> A member function is specifically connected to the object on which
> it was called.
>
> The C++ standards state that an object is a region of memory but
> they do not state that it is JUST a region of memory. The C++
> standards then go on to state that objects can contain member
> subobjects, these are defined within the class. The fact that the
> standard goes on to describe or define objects in greater detail is
> evidence that the C++ obviously do not imply an object is JUST a
> region of storage.

The standard actually says exactly that:

"An *object* is a region of storage." (§1.

The fact that the word "object" is in italics means that this is the
definition of the term "object".

The standard then goes on to say "Note: A function is not an object,
regardless of whether or not it occupies storage in the way that
objects do."


Had the committee decided that member functions should be objects,
even though other functions are not, they would certainly have stated
that. And if they are not objects, they cannot be sub-objects of other
objects, because a sub-object is also required to be an object:

"Objects can contain other objects, called *subobjects*."

Here again, the word "subobject" in italics means that this is the
definition of the term.


Bo Persson

"Paul" <> wrote in message
news:QRlVo.8354$2...
>
> "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+> wrote in
> message news:ig4p18$6fr$...
>>* Paul, on 06.01.2011 16:25:
>>
>> Don't start threads with the name of a person in the subject line.
>>
> Why not that if that is the subject of the thread?
>

If he states Im not worthy of a reply then I have no choice but to talk
about him.

It is also very insulting to say someone is not worthy, and this is the type
of insults and arrogance I have had to deal with since this argument was
created by Francesco and Francis.

"Leigh Johnston" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> On 06/01/2011 16:12, Paul wrote:
>>
>> "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+> wrote in
>> message news:ig4p18$6fr$...
>>> * Paul, on 06.01.2011 16:25:
>>>
>>> Don't start threads with the name of a person in the subject line.
>>>
>> Why not that if that is the subject of the thread?
>>
>>
>
> You obviously have a serious mental condition; I suggest you see a doctor
> and get prescribed some medication; either that or you are still an angry
> hormonal teenager which would also explain a lot.
>
> /Leigh
>
thankyou for your insults.

Paul wrote:
> "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+> wrote in
> message news:ig4p18$6fr$...
>>* Paul, on 06.01.2011 16:25:
>>
>> Don't start threads with the name of a person in the subject line.
>>
> Why not that if that is the subject of the thread?

Well, at least you should not document your professionalism by spelling it
wrongly. I consider it a mixture of you showing a lack of respect or
skills. Didn't you yourself try to diss someone on the base of them making
a spelling mistake?

"Bo Persson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Paul wrote:
>>
>> An object type is defined by its class and can be defined to
>> contain member functions.
>> A member function is specifically connected to the object on which
>> it was called.
>>
>> The C++ standards state that an object is a region of memory but
>> they do not state that it is JUST a region of memory. The C++
>> standards then go on to state that objects can contain member
>> subobjects, these are defined within the class. The fact that the
>> standard goes on to describe or define objects in greater detail is
>> evidence that the C++ obviously do not imply an object is JUST a
>> region of storage.
>
> The standard actually says exactly that:
>
> "An *object* is a region of storage." (§1.
>
> The fact that the word "object" is in italics means that this is the
> definition of the term "object".
>
> The standard then goes on to say "Note: A function is not an object,
> regardless of whether or not it occupies storage in the way that objects
> do."
>
>
> Had the committee decided that member functions should be objects, even
> though other functions are not, they would certainly have stated that.
wHY ARE YOU EVEN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT A FUNCTION MIGHT BE AN OBJECT ,
THIS IS CRAZY.
A function is not an object, caps not inteded but not rewriting it .

>And if they are not objects, they cannot be sub-objects of other objects,
>because a sub-object is also required to be an object:
>
Since when was a subobject required to be an object? You state that its
REQUIRED as if the standards state this.


>Objects can contain other objects, called *subobjects*."
>
> Here again, the word "subobject" in italics means that this is the
> definition of the term.
>
>
> Bo Persson
>
>
>tHE STANDARD SEEMS to define a member subobject in section 9.2, ref section
>1. para 2:

"Objects can contain other objects, called subobjects. A subobject can be a
member subobject (9.2), a base
class subobject (Clause 10), or an array element. An object that is not a
subobject of any other object is
called a complete object."

If you goto section 9.2 :

"9.2 Class members [class.mem]
member-specification:
member-declaration member-specificationopt
access-specifier : member-specificationopt
member-declaration:
attribute-specifieropt decl-specifier-seqopt
member-declarator-listopt ;
function-definition ;opt
:pt nested-name-specifier templateopt unqualified-id ;
using-declaration
static_assert-declaration
template-declaration
alias-declaration
member-declarator-list:
member-declarator
member-declarator-list , member-declarator
member-declarator:
declarator pure-specifieropt
declarator brace-or-equal-initializeropt
identifieropt attribute-specifieropt : constant-expression
pure-specifier:
= 0
1 The member-specification in a class definition declares the full set of
members of the class; no member
can be added elsewhere. Members of a class are data members, member
functions (9.3), nested types,
and enumerators. Data members and member functions are static or non-static;
see 9.4. Nested types are
classes (9.1, 9.7) and enumerations (7.2) defined in the class, and
arbitrary types declared as members by use
of a typedef declaration (7.1.3). The enumerators of an unscoped enumeration
(7.2) defined in the class are
members of the class."


This is how the standard defines the term member subobject.