# Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

From: Mikito Harakiri <mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com>

Date: 1 Jun 2006 10:19:45 -0700

Message-ID: <1149182385.144807.240970_at_h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Date: 1 Jun 2006 10:19:45 -0700

Message-ID: <1149182385.144807.240970_at_h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

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?
*

> But that is rather trivial and uninteresting.

Well, it's hardly trivial for numbers, why it suddenly becomes trivial for functions?

> 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