Re: Declaring super types

From: Tegiri Nenashi <tegirinenashi_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <622e4647-beaf-420c-bee6-a5ecceeb8934_at_y6g2000prk.googlegroups.com>

On Apr 26, 3:25�pm, r..._at_raampje.lan (Reinier Post) wrote:
> E.g. is-a vs. has-a confusion.

You imply that there is a standard has-a definition expressed again purely by relational means? Any example? Received on Tue Apr 27 2010 - 01:26:34 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Tegiri Nenashi: "On Formal IS-A definition"
Maybe in reply to: David BL: "Declaring super types"
In reply to Reinier Post: "Re: Declaring super types"
Next in thread: Cimode: "Re: On Formal IS-A definition"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message