Re: Identity modelling

Roy Hann wrote:
> "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I have to disagree. Note that you can't map your above example
> > onto keys in a relational table, since there is no analog
> > to the separate (key, content) relation.
>
> I think you are getting the cart way in front of the horse there. You have
> no idea what the application context is ('cos no one has ever told us).

The application context is completely irrelevant. Whether something is a key or not is purely a syntactic issue. You don't have to know what a C application does to know whether the result of that & operator returns a pointer or not.

> This is yet another silly thread.

It might be silly in the sense of being a definitional discussion, but it's certainly not silly to try to understand the differing nature of a key vs. a pointer, or of content-based addressing vs. location-based addressing.

Marshall Received on Thu Sep 01 2005 - 03:41:38 CEST