Re: Object-relational impedence

From: Yagotta B. Kidding <>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:19:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <Xns9A5E69187F5ADvdghher_at_194.177.96.26>

Marshall <> wrote in news:026db19e-4064-4b37-

> On Mar 10, 10:47 am, "Yagotta B. Kidding" <> wrote:

>> > Mr. Perryman's example was written in a single-assignment,
>> > mathematical style.
>> And yet you still do not see where the assignment comes in in Mr.
>> Perryman's example.

> You understand that single-assignment is different from
> assignment, right? You know that single-assignment doesn't
> cause any problems with referential transparency, right?

I readily admit that I did not pay attention to the 'single' word until you've pointed out.

I must point out that no one except wikipedia or some misguided souls use the single 'assignment' term any more. Now, the accepted term is name binding or let binding to make the point than no assignment in the imperative sense takes place. You wont find the term in either Haskell or OCAML manuals btw. Just to prevent a potential mud slinging contest, nobody disputes the fact that the mongrel language OCAML does have the real assignment.

Nevertheless, it is possible to express Mr. Perryman's projection with OCAML's structural subtyping and let binding, that much is true, but the attempt would look butt ugly. It is worth to remind perhaps that let binding is an FP feature unavailable in any major OOP language. A question arises, then, why bother and not go for a real thing, FP ?

> Well, we're into a subpoint of a subpoint of a subpoint.
> Perhaps a refreshing Snapple is in order!
> Marshall
Received on Tue Mar 11 2008 - 15:19:09 CET

Original text of this message