Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 19:05:07 +0200
On 1 Jun 2006 09:08:23 -0700, Mikito Harakiri 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?
I said - an object corresponding to function. Function is the value of that object. If 2 can be a value, why a function cannot be? But that is rather trivial and uninteresting. The question was actually about subprograms rather than mathematical functions. They can be objects. As well as tasks and paritions when we are talking about concurrency.
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 19:05:07 CEST