Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: 1 Jun 2006 10:19:45 -0700
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 09:08:23 -0700, Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> > 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?
> The question was actually about subprograms
> rather than mathematical functions. They can be objects.
So can you write a code that supports your otherwise meaningless gibberish? Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 19:19:45 CEST