Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: 1 Jun 2006 09:08:23 -0700
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:50:54 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> > I'm afraid your confusing OO (ie: *object* oriented) with
> > "class-oriented" (like in Java). In a "true OO language", *everything*
> > is an object. So functions are objects too. So functions are first-order.
> I don't think it could be consistent to have everything an object. Though
> it is possible to have object corresponding to functions.
Function is a set of ordered pairs such that a certain condition is met. Where is "object" in this definition? Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 18:08:23 CEST