Re: c.d.theory glossary

From: Timothy J. Bruce <uniblab_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:46:59 GMT
Message-ID: <DLhhc.1291$17.146545@news1.epix.net>

Alfredo, mAsterdam, et al:

> >>>`Formal Theory' should be included.
> >>> ... Object (n): `Something intelligible or perceptible by the
mind.'
> >> I don't see any formality here. I would exclude Object from the list.
> >With 'list' are you referring to Timothy's 'Formal Theory' list
> Yes.
> > or to
> >the glossary? If the latter, why would an entry in the glossary require
> >formality?
> It would be very recomendable anyway.

I included the philosophical sense in order to preclude any of the Simply Wrong senses that are available. If we had a C++ programmer, a Java programmer, a .Dot Net programmer, and a COM programmer we still would not have four people that could agree on `what is an object?'.

The proposed sense is agreeable to all four, but is far from `formal'.

Perhaps I was shooting at the moon,
Timothy J. Bruce
uniblab_at_hotmail.com
</RANT> Received on Tue Apr 20 2004 - 17:46:59 CDT