Re: Operationalize orthogonality
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:43:10 +0300
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> Tony D wrote:
> > x wrote:
> >>"Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> >>>x wrote:
> >>>>How complicated! It would not be easyer to follow Mr. Codd advice ?
> >>>>Domains, not types.
> >>>And the difference between a domain and a type is what ? Precisely ?
> >>The "standard" answer would be "educate yourself". :-)
> > Alternatively, you could attempt a non-standard answer ?
> The answer depends on whether one accepts specialization by constraint
> as specifying a new *type*.
When one specify a type, it is a type no matter how it is specified. :-)
> If one does, then domain and type are
> synonymous. If one does not, then a domain is generally a specified
> subset of some type used in a specified context.
I would accept generalization by constraint. :-)
> > In this context, I equate the terms domain and type - as mentioned in
> > the presentation pointed to elsewhere on this thread. (I don't,
> > however, equate classes with domains or types - principally because (a)
> > I'm not 100% clear on what a class is exactly, and (b) from what I do
> > understand about classes & objects, there is a dynamic element to them
> > that I wouldn't expect to find in a domain or type. I am open to
> > persuasion on these points.)
> a) Neither are the OO proponents.
> b) That comes from the frequent use of 'object' as synonymous with
> 'variable'. However, 'object' gets used for a lot of different things too.
Sorry for the :-) even if you will not see them. Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 14:43:10 CEST