At 8:43 PM +0000 1/5/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
(I admit to be very tempted to answer this "Yes" and leave it at that... :)[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:> I am taking the viewpoint that "everything is in object".Then you'll likely be somewhat surprised at times.Can you elucidate?
I suppose it depends on what you consider object behaviour. If that definition is "I can call methods on it" then yeah, I guess everything'll be "objects", but even my standards aren't that low, and I don't *do* objects.
Things that aren't explicitly objects won't have reference semantics. They won't have attributes. They won't do any of the other dozen or so things objects should do. They will be neither pine fresh nor lemony scented. I can guarantee you that *I* won't be thinking particularly objectly (or objectively, to forestall the obvious rejoinder) about things that aren't objects.
An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type, but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert obligatory "all men are Socratese" quote here)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
