An object is an instance (or not)?

[Ben Finney]

random832 at fastmail.us writes:

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015, at 00:43, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:37 PM,  <random832 at fastmail.us> wrote:
> > > Sub itself is not a Sub object, it is a type object. "instance" is
> > > implicit in the phrase "foo object".
> > 
> > Yes. Unfortunately, it's still not really completely clear. "Sub
> > instance" would avoid this confusion for everyone.
>
> It really is completely clear. Nobody is confused but you.

You have no justification to claim that, and it's hostile and dismissive
to claim it so assertively.

I'll freely admit to finding “'Foo' object” ambiguous. It can reasonably
be interpreted to mean either “a 'Foo' object” (⇒ “an object of class
'Foo'”), or “the 'Foo' object” (⇒ “the object referred to by the name
'Foo'”). The error message which inspired this thread needs improvement,
as I've said already.

Let's not dismiss anyone's experience without good reason.

-- 
 \     “When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no |
  `\     test in reality, this [the Auschwitz crematorium] is how they |
_o__)             behave.” —Jacob Bronowski, _The Ascent of Man_, 1973 |
Ben Finney