Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

On Mar 18, 1:03 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> danielapar..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The term object always refers to a value, in the same sense as an
> > instantiation of a record of data members. (non-trivial objects are
> > instantiations of records of functions.) Most programming languages
> > that claim to support OO ideas have the notion of references or
> > pointers to these values, which can be stored in variables. I think
> > you need to back up your claim that 'the same folks use "object" to
> > mean "variable" and "type"'
>
> You are not serious, are you?

I think so :-) That being said, it's not hard to find ambiguous language, when taken out of context. For example, it is common to use the word "record" when referring to both the record type and the record instance, but it is usually obvious from the context what is meant.

Daniel Received on Sun Mar 18 2007 - 18:48:16 CET