On 10/31/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As, I think, is analogy to OOP to begin with. > > The term was used without definition. I drew parallels to existing > usage of "subclass". :P
Technically speaking, you actually drew parallels to existing usage of "class". It makes no sense in OOP to talk about the number of subclasses of an instance (except, perhaps, when using object prototyping, which is clearly inapplicable here). If you try looking up "class" instead of "subclass" in the dictionary, you will find a host of definitions. -root
