Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:03:25 GMT
Message-ID: <xheLh.11956$PV3.123128_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> The term object always refers to a value, in the same sense as an
> instantiation of a record of data members. (non-trivial objects are
> instantiations of records of functions.) Most programming languages
> that claim to support OO ideas have the notion of references or
> pointers to these values, which can be stored in variables. I think
> you need to back up your claim that 'the same folks use "object" to
> mean "variable" and "type"'
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:03:25 GMT
Message-ID: <xheLh.11956$PV3.123128_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
danielaparker_at_gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:04 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Drago Ganic wrote: >> >>>The right name for "instance of type (or ADT)" is *value* and not *object*. >> >>Except that many use the word "object" to mean "value" too. That the >>same folks use "object" to mean "variable" and "type" doesn't help.
>
> The term object always refers to a value, in the same sense as an
> instantiation of a record of data members. (non-trivial objects are
> instantiations of records of functions.) Most programming languages
> that claim to support OO ideas have the notion of references or
> pointers to these values, which can be stored in variables. I think
> you need to back up your claim that 'the same folks use "object" to
> mean "variable" and "type"'
You are not serious, are you? Received on Sun Mar 18 2007 - 18:03:25 CET