Re: Sets and Lists, again
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:45:54 +0300
Message-ID: <e4ueel$9fn$1_at_emma.aioe.org>
"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148351294.350541.174720_at_38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> JOG wrote:
> > In the end a list is 'this, then that, then t'other' - purely ordinal.
> > As such here I agree with Gene - creating an index to identify the
> > location of each item in that list is a physical accessor.
> I sure don't see that at all. How is it any more physical than any
> other name to call something emailAddress[2]? It is logically the 3rd
> (or 2nd) element in a list, but it need not be a physical designation
> at all. This is definitely a logical designation, with no prescription
> for anything physical (although it could obviously relate to a physical
> design).
The thing is that 2 is not part of the domain of discourse.
It function like a computer address.
It does not matter if it is a "real" address or a virtual one.
More, the relationship between the location id (2,3,...) and the
emailAddress is not a relationship. :-)
Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 09:45:54 CEST