Re: c.d.theory glossary
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:46:59 GMT
Message-ID: <DLhhc.1291$17.146545_at_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 Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:46:59 CEST