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

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:40:16 +0200
Message-ID: <40dc9bbe$0$48959$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

x wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>>x wrote:
  >>>... Class is an overloaded word :-)
>

>>So let's overload type ???

>
> Type
> - a class, group or category of things or persons sharing one or more
> characteristics
> - a representant of the type
> - a pattern
>
> Class
> - a collection of things or persons of the same type
> - a caste
> - any division of persons or things
>
> They are both overloaded.

Sure. The common language meanings you stated are, and the specialized meanings in database/IT are.

Jumping out of context is disruptive and requires refocussing. Sometimes it helps to clear the mind. Let's get some continuity and zoom in: Topic: type and class as used in
programming languages, software analysis & design (even more specifically: database definition, a subset of programming languages).

While trying to find out what 'type' and 'class' mean to different people, it struck me that there is more to the meaning and use of those terms than what on the surface looks like (relatively) simple misunderstandings.

I have my biases/preferences about how terms should be used, but I am happy to include definitions in the glossary that would not go nicely with those. Just don't expect me to come up with them, and don't expect me to ignore an often used/abused term.

>>OTOH... that must mean you can give several relevant
>>definitons! Yey!  :-)

>
> No. It means that I am aware it is used to mean a bunch of things :-)

Grrrmpf. Clever escape :-) You could try, though.

>>> No. The actors act and the operators operate. :-)
>>>The behavior create types. :-)

>

>>How?

>
> What how ?
> How the actors act ?
> How the operators operate ?
> How the behavior create types ?

Yawn. Yep.

> Haven't you heard the expressions "stupid people" , "you are a troll", etc.
> ?

Ah. That behavior, those types. Surely they served as a metaphore when the terms were first coined in the context *we* (I hope) are discussing.

>>>And there are different types of behavior. :-)
>>>And operators have types. :-)

>

>>Sloppy.

>

>>Operands have *a* type.
>>The result of an operator is typed.
>>An operator has type constraints; it can only
>>operate on operands of certain types.

>
> Operators can apply to 1,2,3, ... operands.
> Operators are or aren't commutative.
> Operators are or aren't associative.
> ...

Yep.

> ... I appreciate the work you are doing.

Thank you :-)

> But sometimes it is necessary to inject some noise for escaping from local
> minima. :-)

Sometimes necessary:
http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim420/reading/rim420_Dither.html (somewhat out of context :-)

The audible effect is amazing. Undithered recordings just sound awful. Received on Fri Jun 25 2004 - 16:40:16 CDT