An object is an instance (or not)?

[Ben Finney]

Mario Figueiredo <marfig at gmail.com> writes:

> It is true that a class object is an instance of 'type'. But this is a
> special type (can't avoid the pun).

Nevertheless it is a class, and can do everything that classes do.

And every class is an object, and can do everything that objects do.

You seem to agree with those, so please stop claiming that classes are
not objects. Python classes are always objects, and always have been.

> A class object is not an instance of the type it implements.

You keep introducing hurdles that are irrelevant. Yes, a class is not an
instance of itself. That doesn't impact the fact a class is an object.

> That is what I mean by an object that isn't an instance.

That's incoherent. It's an instance of a class, and simultaneously is
not an instance?

> In other words, the object know as "Sub class" is not an instance 
> object. True, it is an instance of the object 'type'.

You've tied yourself in knots with concepts that are not coherent, and
even if they were do not appear to be relevant to Python.

-- 
 \      “Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not |
  `\     happen at all. The conscientious historian will correct these |
_o__)                          defects.” —Mark Twain, _A Horse's Tale_ |
Ben Finney