Re: Anybody for changing light bulbs?

"Alvin Ryder" wrote
>
> And then what happens is
>
> one says "yes but this has been derived once and for all from Set
> Theory and Relanguaging Calculus, changing bulbs is an implementation
> issue so we don't care".
>
> 3 to say "Me too" (errh whatever he said)
>
> 1 asks "Is a bulb structured or is it a simple object"? Is one
> structured bulb allowed in a socket just like Date?
>
> 999 Say it must be normalized into neutrinos and quarks then it must be
> joined again, then it can be inserted in the socket.
>
> 8 say as long as you only plug "one" object in it doesn't matter if it
> has structure or not, remember Date?
>
> 907 to say "hay the term 'object' is too confusing, a clearer way to
> say it is "simple domain value", erh we mean "atomic", arh we mean
> "single value", oh we mean "single instance of a type".
>
> 7 to say what's the difference between a "single instance of a type"
> and an "object"?
>
> 1 says IDJIT you are a self-agrandizing arrogant, you know nothing!
>
> In Relanguaging Calculus we clearly see that "a single instance of a
> type is an object", unlike those OO idiots where they say "a single
> instance of a type is an object"!
>
> The difference can only be understood if and only if your theory is
> firmly built on Relanguaging Algebra.
>
> 1 says "Nevermind that, I've just inherited a special sub-bulb from my
> grandma, can I plug that into the socket?"
>
> 2 say Sub-bulbs are in "The Third Socket Manifestation", so if the
> socket shape is the same then why not plug the sub-bulb in? Remember
> the example of Date? Structured bulb objects and even sub-bulbs are
> allowed.
>

Very funny. :-)) Received on Tue May 09 2006 - 00:57:06 CEST