Re: On formal HAS-A definition
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 15:44:19 -0300
Message-ID: <4be5b105$0$26945$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I would like to understand
> the IS-A you're discussing. I'll continue reading.
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 15:44:19 -0300
Message-ID: <4be5b105$0$26945$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Nilone wrote:
> On May 8, 2:12 pm, r..._at_raampje.lan (Reinier Post) wrote:
>
>>Nilone wrote: >> >>>A relation is not a domain. >> >>THat is irrelevant for the IS-A I'm discussing.
>
> My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I would like to understand
> the IS-A you're discussing. I'll continue reading.
This is where Clinton becomes vitally important. Received on Sat May 08 2010 - 20:44:19 CEST