Path: text.usenetserver.com!out04b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:  David BL <davidbl@iinet.net.au>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
Subject: Re: RM and abstract syntax trees
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:51:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <1194799862.657186.35460@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
References: <1193713604.283167.146850@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
   <aa2dnV0VyZodZLvanZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@pipex.net>
   <1193743772.498246.198100@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
   <a6KVi.160778$1y4.93722@pd7urf2no>
   <1193790888.643295.55060@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
   <lyQVi.162446$th2.72407@pd7urf3no>
   <1193796029.446713.108270@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
   <LIYVi.3472$p%.201@trndny03>
   <1194634928.585870.33340@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
   <%a5Zi.217$NC.121@trndny07>
   <1194653707.402224.177270@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
   <gIkZi.1933$ET.389@trndny03>
   <47361e66$0$5287$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>
   <WuzZi.555$OJ.232@trndny06>
   <47371464$0$5301$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.146.146
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1194799863 13606 127.0.0.1 (11 Nov 2007 16:51:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:51:03 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <47371464$0$5301$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.59.146.146;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: usenetserver.com comp.databases.theory:167301
X-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:51:03 EST (text.usenetserver.com)

On Nov 11, 11:40 pm, Bob Badour <bbad...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> David Cressey wrote:

> >>I would argue that an OID is nothing more than an abstract address. The
> >>problem with OIDs are people use them to point at things. The first and
> >>most compelling indication of this is when they mention some alleged
> >>performance advantage.
>
> > Agreed.  However, the fact that people use them to point at things doesn't
> > mean that they really are pointers.
>
> I disagree. If they are used to point, they are pointers. What the heck
> do you think the word means?

LOL