Re: Object-relational impedence
From: paul c <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:59:53 GMT
Message-ID: <JoIAj.63569$w94.44790_at_pd7urf2no>
>
> A sub scope is a scope that lives within another scope. The simplest
> example is the following C code.
>
>
> { // parent scope
> int i;
> int j;
> { // sub scope
> int i;
> }
> }
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:59:53 GMT
Message-ID: <JoIAj.63569$w94.44790_at_pd7urf2no>
Robert Martin wrote:
> On 2008-03-06 06:37:19 -0600, JOG <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> said:
>
>> Using nonsense words like 'subscope' doesn't do conversation any >> favours Robert.
>
> A sub scope is a scope that lives within another scope. The simplest
> example is the following C code.
>
>
> { // parent scope
> int i;
> int j;
> { // sub scope
> int i;
> }
> }
If high-falutin' lingo like 'lives within another scope' passes for explanation in OO circles no wonder they are perpetuate other babble besides. A newcomer would profit not a bit from the above but a lot from an explanation of a logical stack, which is a simple and clear runtime mechanism (regardless of whether a hardware stack or heap is used). Then he could call it what he wants, once he understands what is really happening on a typical machine. Why are the regulars here encouraging these cross-posters and 'machine as animal' mystics? Received on Sun Mar 09 2008 - 03:59:53 CET