From: jeffc (nobody_at_nowhere.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:11:03 -0500
"Chris ( Val )" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> | The OP asked about a specific passage from a specific book,
> | that was an interpretation of the standard, and it was, as
> | I said, misleading at best. The fact that the standard
> | itself is not "perfect" isn't really relevant.
> This is my whole point though.
> You say the statement is "misleading at best", right ?.
> At the same time, you acknowledge that the standard
> is not prefectly or clearly written, and the fact that
> readers of this standard have different interpretations
> of its writing'.
> Using your logic, one could argue the standard itself
> is misleading(I acknowledge that it is not very clear
> in a lot of areas itself), so why don't you taint it
> with the same brush ?
I acknowledged that declaration vs. definition can be confusing, or could be
considered misleading. The OP didn't ask about declaration vs. definition,
he asked about class vs. object. I'm not aware of anything confusing or
misleading there. In Smalltalk or some other OO language, class and object
might get confusing, but I don't think there's any reason for it in C++.