Re: General semantics
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:00:11 -0400
Message-ID: <av2dnZ8sV6fWUmPWnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
"Erwin" <e.smout_at_myonline.be> wrote in message news:a42d48e9-6561-447f-88b7-39e4fe4a202b_at_q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> And all the others questions and issues raised in the TTM section that
> discusses variables of type POINTER_TO_CIRCLE and POINTER_TO_ELLIPSE.
> (The word 'pointer' in those names really means 'references', not
> 'pointers' in the C sense). I cannot tell from here whether you've
> read that, but if you haven't you might be interested, and if you
> have, you might be interested to look at it again.
D&D's argument against OIDs is based on a false premise. An OID is a name that is assigned to an object in the domain of discourse, not to a program's representation of the object. (See page 210 of TTM, Third Edition.) D&D argue that an OID references a memory location (a variable), when in fact it references what is represented therein.
<snip> Received on Thu May 27 2010 - 22:00:11 CEST