Re: Value (was: Mixing OO and DB)
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <c945373c-0db7-485a-9186-c2d790b154e4@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <c945373c-0db7-485a-9186-c2d790b154e4@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 23, 3:55 am, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
> >
> > For what it's worth, lately when I think of "value", I just think
> > "a member of a set."
>
> Is it right to say: you are trying to avoid 'value' as primitive term?
> If so may I ask why?
Lately I am viewing things through the lens of set theory. Set theory already has its primitive terms: "set" and the membership relation. These are sufficient for its needs. Value can be defined in those terms, so no need to add an additional primitive term. (And we want to minimize the primitives.)
Marshall Received on Sat Feb 23 2008 - 12:56:19 CST