An object is an instance (or not)?

Tue Jan 27 21:21:15 EST 2015

On 1/27/15 7:17 PM, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> In article <mailman.18191.1422400930.18130.python-list at python.org>,
> ned at nedbatchelder.com says...
>>>> A common mistake is to believe that "OOP" is a well-defined term. It's
>> not it's a collection of ideas that are expressed slightly differently
>> in each language.
>> A common mistake is thinking just because OOP has different
> implementations, it doesn't have a cohesive set of well described rules
> and its own well defined terminology.

I know you think that it has well described rules and terminology. But 
take a look at this discussion, and maybe realize that the terms are not 
as well-defined, or certainly not as widely accepted as you think.
Do you have a reference that defines these terms?
>>> I don't know what a "not fully realized object" is.
>> A fully realized object, in an object oriented paradigm, is an object
> containing or pointing to data and the methods to act on that data. It's
> an instance of a class.
>> A *not* fully realized object is possible in Python, since Classes are
> first-class objects, despite not being able to participate in OOP.
>>>> What does "participate in OOP" mean?
>> Means the object is capable of participating in inheritance and/or
> polymorphism. An instance of an object is capable of doing so, per its
> class definitions. Whereas a Python class object is not.
>> >>> class Master:
> def func(self):
> pass
>> >>> class Sub(Master):
> pass
>> >>> Sub.func()
> TypeError: func() missing 1 required positional argument: 'self'

> But somehow I think you knew the answer to all these questions and were
> instead being snarky.

I am not being snarky, I'm trying to understand where our mutual 
incomprehension lies.
-- 
Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com