Re: Mixing OO and DB
- From: Marshall <marshall.spight@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:01:44 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 22, 9:14 pm, mAsterdam <mAster...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Marshall wrote:
THAT is a definition.
How can I rephrase this to qualify to your standards of what a
definition is?:
[Value]
"A value is unique, eternal, immutable, and is not
fixed in time or space (it has no address)."
- Darren Duncan
Ok, ok. I'll unhide my hidden agenda: nobody responded
my proposal for the glossary until now :-)
Any more silence I'll consider as approval.
Hmmm. Well, this unfortunately isn't just a matter of phrasing.
A set of descriptive qualities is not a definition.
Unfortunately where "value" is concerned, it is often the
most low-level terms that are the hardest to define.
By way of example, I'm paying a modest amount of
attention to set theory lately, and it uses terms like
"set" and the membership relation but explicitly does
not define them.
For what it's worth, lately when I think of "value", I just think
"a member of a set."
Marshall
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mixing OO and DB
- From: Jan Hidders
- Value (was: Mixing OO and DB)
- From: mAsterdam
- Re: Mixing OO and DB
- Prev by Date: Re: Mixing OO and DB
- Next by Date: Value (was: Mixing OO and DB)
- Previous by thread: Re: Mixing OO and DB
- Next by thread: Value (was: Mixing OO and DB)
- Index(es):