Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:41:43 GMT
Message-ID: <HoSLh.12715$PV3.131604_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> As Marshall said, there is a very contradictorial literature.
> "Instance of an ADT" quoted out of context is absolutely unclear as
> the Java spec proves.
>
>
>
> I don't have a lot of respect for that literature and I am more
> familiar with literature that uses better terminology.
>
> ADT is a rather silly synonym of type. I can not imagine a non
> abstract type nor a type that is not a data type.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:41:43 GMT
Message-ID: <HoSLh.12715$PV3.131604_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On 19 mar, 21:21, "Daniel" <danielapar..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>I hope you agree that the concept of an instance of an ADT is >>>>absolutely clear. >> >>>"Instance" is a synonym of "object" and it has the very same >>>fuzziness. >> >>I'm not referring to intuitive notions, the algebraic specification of >>ADT's is well understood, there's a literature on that subject.
>
> As Marshall said, there is a very contradictorial literature.
> "Instance of an ADT" quoted out of context is absolutely unclear as
> the Java spec proves.
>
>
>> If >>you don't have some basic familiarity with that literature and its >>terminology, it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
>
> I don't have a lot of respect for that literature and I am more
> familiar with literature that uses better terminology.
>
> ADT is a rather silly synonym of type. I can not imagine a non
> abstract type nor a type that is not a data type.
Unqualified the terms "type" and "class" in mathematics have specific meanings with respect to infinite sets unrelated to data types.
[snip] Received on Tue Mar 20 2007 - 15:41:43 CET