Re: Object-relational impedence

On Mar 5, 6:57 am, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-03 17:06:05 -0600, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> said:
>
> > A join of the two statements gave me the inference I required: {Name,
> > Mortality}. All of a sudden it seemed simple.
>
> Interesting story. Yes, when you have a problem of inference, it's
> good to use an inference engine.
>
> > So some questions:
>
> > 1) So why not treat all 'inheritance' in this way?
>
> Because all inheritance is not about inference.

Hmmm. Then might you give an example of a situation where inheritance cannot be described in terms of inference?

>
> > 2) Could one extend to include 'behaviour' as well?
>
> Yes. See the Prolog language.
>
> > 3) And is this a crazy thing to suggest in a cross post to an OO
> > group?
>
> I've seen a lot crazier things.
>
> --
> Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: uncle..._at_objectmentor.com
> Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com
> The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com
> 800-338-6716 |
Received on Wed Mar 05 2008 - 13:48:31 CET