Re: RM and abstract syntax trees
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:57:39 -0700
paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac> wrote:
>David Cressey wrote:
>> If you need the concept of arbitrary meaningless identifier in order to make
>> a point about how RM represents trees, go ahead. Just don't call them
>> "pointers" and don't assert that they are the quivalent of pointers when
>> they are not.
>Heh, "arbitrary meaningless identifier", somebody's liable to make an
>acronym out of that. I'd rather call it a "made-up" name that stands
>for a place-holder for a variable set of values that are also made-up.
>In fact, I think all attributes and the values they stand for are
>made-up, not just these "AMI's", so db "meaning" is made-up too. Maybe
^^^ Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
>more importantly, even if those identifiers might be thought of as
>pointers by some programmers, I'd say when talking about db's it is more
>fruitful to think of them as variables, so we can mentally connect a db
>with its predicates.
I am reminded of pAssembler that I used years ago at university. It was called "NIP" which stood for "nothing in particular". My compsci instructor said that several times.
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 23:57:39 CET