As SA has stated, these "patterns" do not mean anything, not officially anyway. If an article or book you are reading uses these terms, it has likely coined them itself, and should provide the definitions. But these are not design patterns that you can find in the GoF book, nor are they in any way official terms from the C++ terminology.
The official meaning of "object" in the context of C++ is the instantiation of a class. attaching "pattern" to either "class" or "object" therefore doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I suggest you get some better article/book that actually uses the official terminology rather than confusing people by using their own. Check on books by any of the following authors (in no particular order):
- Bjarne Stroustrup
- Andrei Alexandrescu
- Herb Sutter
Personally I find Stroustrup a bit easier read for beginners, but the others really help to get the hang of more complex aspects of the language once you're ready for that.
There are other very good authors as well, but IMHO you don't know C++ if you haven't read works from these three authors!
Quote:
one difference i noticed is class pattern uses inheritence and object pattern uses composition
Forget these "pattern" terms. Inheritance is one cornerstone of the "Object Oriented Programming" (OOP), whereas composition is a basic element used in "Procedural Programming". You can find more information about this when you search for
Programming Paradigms. The term "pattern" in this context is entirely misplaced!
Submit an article or tip