Re: Sets and Lists, again

"x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote in message news:e4ueel$9fn$1_at_emma.aioe.org...
>
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148351294.350541.174720_at_38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > JOG wrote:
> > > In the end a list is 'this, then that, then t'other' - purely ordinal.
> > > As such here I agree with Gene - creating an index to identify the
> > > location of each item in that list is a physical accessor.
>
> > I sure don't see that at all. How is it any more physical than any
> > other name to call something emailAddress[2]? It is logically the 3rd
> > (or 2nd) element in a list, but it need not be a physical designation
> > at all. This is definitely a logical designation, with no prescription
> > for anything physical (although it could obviously relate to a physical
> > design).
>
> The thing is that 2 is not part of the domain of discourse.
> It function like a computer address.
> It does not matter if it is a "real" address or a virtual one.
> More, the relationship between the location id (2,3,...) and the
> emailAddress is not a relationship. :-)

I'll add that this is very similar to the attribute names. Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 09:48:02 CEST