Re: RM and abstract syntax trees

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

     Really?

>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.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.