Re: General semantics

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:06:45 -0300
Message-ID: <4bf6e70c$0$11838$>

Nilone wrote:

> On May 21, 7:42 pm, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>>Sorry, Bob, I think that came out the wrong way.  I meant a direct
>>>description of OOP in a RM would require a domain called OID over
>>>which we can define relations.  In current SQL systems, I could use an
>>>integer of the same width as the address bus.  I certainly don't want
>>>to change the RM in any way.
>>Sorry, Nilone, it's still sounds like a lousy idea to me.

> Would you mind telling me why? It seems to me you deny either the
> effectiveness or the efficiency of a relational description of a
> system, or the permission to do so. As long as I don't try to build
> an inferior tool with a better one, where is the problem in using the
> latter to analyze the former?

Perhaps you are not communicating what you want to do. Creating OID because OOPLs have pointers sounds like a bad idea. Before going down that road, I suggest you ask yourself whether it is truly necessary and what you hope to achieve by simulating a low-level computational model in a higher-level symbolic algebra. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 15:06:45 CDT

Original text of this message