From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1dc0d0f1c69afb5a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: polymophism
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-ID: <E19v7y.25K@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 198058603
references: <56q99a$5o3@rc1.vub.ac.be> <56skhq$9cg@hacgate2.hac.com>
 <570f4b$rbu@queeg.apci.net> <JSA.96Nov21224946@alexandria>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <JSA.96Nov21224946@alexandria>,
Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote:
>...  Shrug.  I prefer to not
>accept your definition as it seems to have little to do with the term
>as it is used in common practice.

In common practice, "object oriented" simply means "good".  ;-)

- Bob