Re: The word "symbol"

VC wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124063917.008727.271740_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > The question of whether to model integers used within software as
> > subclasses of strings, for example, makes sense when we understand that
> > 1234 is not a number, but a symbol for one, just as "David" is not a
> > name, but a symbol for one (in response to VC's question about whether
> > "symbol" and "name" are synonyms).
> >
>
> If you say that "David" is a symbol for a person's name, then, in order to
> be consistent, you ought to say that "1234" is a symbol for the number's
> name,

I don't think I have to -- I am symbolizing the actual number, not any name you might want to give it.

> although I do not think that in the context of formal systems such
> locutions are productive at all. Instead, it's much easier and clearer to
> say that "David" is a person's name and "1234" is a constant (a number's
> name).

We usually don't get confused if we write that "David" is a person's name and 1234 is a number. But sometimes computer folks gets confused and think that they they are working with a number when they are working with symbols for numbers. Usually it is ok to think like that, but it can be confusing when discussing types. We often say that "David" is of type String or varchar, for example, but that 1234 is of type short or int. If 1234 is of type int, then "David" is of type firstName (or some such) because we are then giving the type of the referent rather than the symbol.

--dawn

> Cheers.
>
> > --dawn
> >
Received on Mon Aug 15 2005 - 05:41:02 CEST