Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!mdisea!mothost!schbbs!news
From: shang@corp.mot.com (David L. Shang)
Subject: Re: Types, types: static vs. dynamic -- classification
Reply-To: shang@corp.mot.com
Organization: MOTOROLA 
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 16:45:05 GMT
Message-ID: <1995Nov29.164505.3491@schbbs.mot.com>
References: <49gge1$m3j@news.ox.ac.uk>
Sender: news@schbbs.mot.com (SCHBBS News Account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 129.188.128.126
Lines: 22
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:41611 comp.lang.smalltalk:31241 comp.lang.c++:162451 comp.lang.misc:24019

In article <49gge1$m3j@news.ox.ac.uk> lady0065@sable.ox.ac.uk (David Hopwood)  
writes:
> I haven't seen Transframe, but this description seems to be confusing
> two separate issues: the scope of a class A, or thread body, or whatever
> (which may be nested within that of another class B), and the relation
> at run-time between instances of B, and A's class object.
> 

Transframe has three kinds of scopes: class scope, object scope,
and block scope. They are well defined. Class scope is identical
to object scope except that it is a higher order scope. The
description of class scope is done by just replacing the
term in object scope with a corresponding term at the meta-level.

If you look at the C++ reference written by the the standardization
committee, you'll find that the definition of a class scope is
rather confusing. The semantics for nested classes and static memebers
are inconsistant. The scope resoluation operator "::" is ambiguous.


David Shang

