Re: Variables and closures (Was: Objects and Relations)

On Feb 11, 5:47 am, Chris Smith <cdsm..._at_twu.net> wrote:
> Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > However, in this case I see an actual benefit (I almost said
> > "value" ha ha) to making explicit the fact that objects are
> > a kind of first class variable. It makes the significance of
> > various language design choices more apparent.
>
> Sure. If you're trying to get across something more fundamental than
> whether "variable" should mean one thing or another, then that's worth
> discussing. It sounds like that's going on, although I've yet to hunt
> down what you mean by "first-class variable" in this context.
>
> I was responding more to the other conversation going on beside your
> point. That one can, I think, be fairly summed up as:
>
> DavidBL: "Ha ha! He said variable instead of object! Idiot."

That's putting words in my mouth. I simply stated as fact that Bob confused the difference. I neither implied it was funny nor he was an idiot. In fact I believe neither to be the case.

The example was C++ so he should use the C++ terminology.

It doesn't appear possible to make subjective or even objective statements on this newsgroup without all sorts of implied meanings being attached. I imagine your above summation of what I said would indeed reflect the perception of many members of the group. Certainly Gene and Keith have described their (false) perceptions.

> Bob: "There's only one true 'variable'! Self-aggrandizing ignorant."

That's a fair summary.

>
> That's what I objected to.

[snip]

My short stay at cdt has been both interesting and frustrating. Unfortunately it has been taking up too much of my time.

Thanks to all,

David Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 02:12:03 CET