Sure sure--I get that. I guess the thing I'm fuzzy on is the concept of the *metaclass* (in the smalltalk (and ruby?)) sense. That's the direction I was hoping the discussion would go in.
But that may have nothing to do w/the OP's question, or the response that prompted this little spur thread. Like I say--I'm fuzzy on it... ;-) -----Original Message----- From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Johnson Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:08 PM To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] static class interface On 5/25/07, Pardee, Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But it doesn't necessarily follow from that that a class is an object, > does it? > > Not that I mean to argue that .net classes *aren't* objects, mind > you--I think probably they are, and the Type class is the class Class. > But I'm looking forward to further discussion, as I know there are > some nuances of this stuff that I don't understand... > I like to think of it this way. A class is the blueprint for an object and an object is an instance of a class. You have no objects w/o instances; only blueprints for the creation of objects. -- Steve Johnson =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
