Re: c.d.theory glossary

mAsterdam et al:

> > `Formal Theory' should be included.
> > The term `Formal Theory' will also REQUIRE:
> > Object (n): `Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.'
> > Because `Formal Theory' is included, we must EXCLUDE:
> > Object in any sense other than above
> 'Object' is also used to mean (ISO):
> "model of an entity, characterised by behaviour and state.", with
> 'Entity' as "thing of interest".
>
> Would you object (heh) to that use?

No one, not even ISO has a *FORMAL* _theory_ or _definition_ of `object'.

Since there is no *FORMAL* theory on `object' it would be irresponsible, misleading, and dangerous to the comp.database.THEORY group if we were to include any other sense of `object' than the philosophical sense, which is why I do invoke the intransitive verb sense in this post (HHOS). I do hate to remind you, who are doing us all a great favour by assuming the role lexicographer and making this keen glossery, that this is a THEORY group, and not an implementation group.

The philosophical sense, by the way, is agreeable by all peoples, programmers and nonprogrammers alike, and adequately addresses the first O in OOP also.

I'm serious here,
Timothy J. Bruce
uniblab_at_hotmail.com
</RANT> Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 02:02:56 CEST