Yes.
No, because you talked about the object properties, those-that-have-no-name-which-you-gather-through-Bodies-functions-and-conceptualize-as-Fields, not abstract ones. Yes, "color" is Fields, but the blackness of your phone is Bodies; yes, "value" is Fields, but the $100 worth of your phone is Bodies. You forgot what this started off, you said:
Don't confuse object properties with abstract properties, you make an awfully gross equivocation, and I'm gonna give you an example from C programming, perhaps you can understand better:
In the first case (Point), you have the definition, the Fields - and the properties of the structure are literaly fields, BTW. They are empty, it would be absurd to ask you to tell me the x of the Point because there is no such thing, the properties of the structure abstract and they are x, y and z. The object (instance of the structure) that appears in the second case (p1), when the properties are values, that is 10.0, 15.0 and -10.0. This is what the object is, a sum of values that have no name and no purpose but which you associate as something. In the example above the fact that you know what the initial purpose of those values are stands merely in making it yourself and having the names in the definition (like Ji->Pe), but you may use these values as something else entirely if you want to, also, in reverse engineering (like Pe->Ji) you have only the objects and their values whose meaning you don't initially know, but assign temporary labels to them and try to figure out what they mean.typedef struct _Point {
float x;
float y;
float z;
} Point;
Point p1;
p1.x = 10.0;
p1.y = 15.0;
p1.z = -10.0;
---
@PistolShrimp: the mods will move the off-topic to a separate thread.



, 
or a Static Field, is the imprint of a Static Body, no? The imprint is a reflection of what the Object is, it's essence translated into a definite or indefinite framework. A Static Field is the mold so to speak.
Reply With Quote