Re: The naive test for equality

David Cressey wrote:
> "VC" <boston103_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7sOdnZvcEttiHGzfRVn-1w_at_comcast.com...
> >
> > "Paul" <paul_at_test.com> wrote in message
> > news:42f12830$0$24039$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> > > By "representation" I mean the actual symbols used to convey the idea of
> > > a "value", and they may be several of these representations for one
> value.
> > >
> >
> > I do not understand this.
>
> I think the term "literal value" from classical programming language
> documents might be relevant here.
>
> The literal value conveys from the writer to the reader a specific value
> from one of the types. Thus
>
> 12345 is a literal value
> 123.45 is a literal value
> '123.45' is a literal value (of a string).

<Paul> wrote:

"well, the equivalence class can be thought of as a set of possible representations for the "value" that "is" the equivalence class "

I do not see how 'possible representations' (whatever they are), or 'literals', are relevant to the simple notion of equivalence class.

Thanks. Received on Thu Aug 04 2005 - 16:57:55 CEST