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@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?

Well, it is easy to understand what the domain of numbers is and what operations are among them. So I can implement the Integer class. Can you write a definition of Function class?

> 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 - 12:19:45 CDT