Re: c.d.theory glossary -- definition of "class"

From: x <x-false_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:31:20 +0300
Message-ID: <40dae4ad$1_at_post.usenet.com>


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:e4330f45.0406240421.3558d056_at_posting.google.com...

> No, the behavior IS the manner in which something functions or
> operates.
> www.dictionary.com

> "Manner" and "something" are also fuzzy terms.

No. Fuzzy is a fuzzy term :-)

Here "something" is a unnamed variable :-) And some words cannot be defined by other words in a noncircular manner :-).

> Types imply some behavior, although they are constant, variables imply
> some behavior, integrity constraints imply some behavior, derivation
> rules imply some behavior, operators imply some behavior, etc.

> There is database behavior, application behavior, presentation
> behavior, user's behavior, good behavior, bad behavior and many other
> behaviors.

Code is data and data is code :-)
It seems you know what is a behavior despite the fuzzy terms :-)

> I don't see any usefulness in the term having a lot more precise terms
> like:
> type, variable, value and operator. Probably the four key terms in
> computer language theory.
>
> > > Yes if we have alternatives with only one meaning.
> >
> > Not if these disregard valuable notions.

> What valuable notions "class" and "behavior" have that we can not find
> in the more precise terms?

I agree. Class is an overloaded word :-)

> > Well, yes. But IMHO there is an essential, (dynamic) notion
> > getting lost if we use 'type' as a would-be synonym.

> Can you clarify this?
> When class means type it means type and nothing more.

> Types have operators, and operators act on values, thus they have
> behavior :)

 No. The actors act and the operators operate. :-) The behavior create types. :-)
And there are different types of behavior. :-)

> BTW "have" is an extremely ambiguous word :-)
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=have
>
> > So am I. Extending 'type' just blurs. It does not help.

> We don't need any extension. Types have operators.

And operators have types. :-)

Funny :-)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  • Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Received on Thu Jun 24 2004 - 16:31:20 CEST

Original text of this message