Re: On Formal IS-A definition
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 18:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <12edd823-0a33-4888-8b5a-4621b83f87c0_at_32g2000prq.googlegroups.com>
On May 7, 7:18 am, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
> On 7 mei, 01:13, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 9:10 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > There is no subtype relationship between ellipse variables and circle
> > variables (in either direction).
>
> Look for a (very old) post by Jan Hidders on this subject.
>
> Strange as it may seem, it explains very well what is actually meant
> by this weard claim that a variable can be considered as being a
> subtype of another variable.
>
> Even I understood it, at the time I was reading that particular post.
However, more to the point, there is a sense in which the premise
behind subtype = subset is violated. Even though I think it's odd, if
we choose to treat variables as values (by considering a variable to
be an address value within some address space), and we have two
functions to read/write variables (aka dereferencing pointer or
address values)
read(address)
Then although we can consider the ellipse variables to have a superset
of the functionality, it is not true that that they represent a
subset in the address space. A procedure that expects to be passed
write(address, value)
So in the rule:
subtype = subset of values + superset of the operators
there is a sense in which only the second half is satisfied when considering the question of whether an ellipse variable is a subtype of a circle variable. Received on Fri May 07 2010 - 03:34:48 CEST