Re: On Formal IS-A definition

Bob Badour wrote:
> Reinier Post wrote:
...
>> I was trying to sidestep the issue of attribute (re)naming here,
>> because it is beside the main point of the example, which is that
>> according to your definition, the same relation (Herbivores)
>> has two different IS-A relations, one with Animals and
>> one with Vegetables. I know multiple inheritance in
>> programming languages tends to be used in just this kind
>> of way (with "mixin classes" for instance) but I think with
>> such a notion the name "IS-A" is just wrong. It's fine to have
>> your proposed notion but give it a different name: call it a role
>> or something. A Herbivore just isn't a Vegetable.
>>
>> I know this is again an argument about naming, but this time
>> it's about the name "is a" itself.
>
> I thought Clinton settled this whole issue already. Cigar anyone?

I think Clinton knew his silly language parsing didn't matter to the majority of his (semi-literate) public. What puzzles me is why smart people here spend time on such subjective fooferah and never bring up, say, just what the Information Principle really means. Received on Tue May 04 2010 - 03:04:26 CEST