Re: General semantics
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 17:06:45 -0300
> On May 21, 7:42 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> 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