Re: Mixing OO and DB

From: Brian Selzer <brian_at_selzer-software.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:48:02 GMT
Message-ID: <CT%Cj.20786$Ej5.4428_at_newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>

"rpost" <rpost_at_pcwin518.campus.tue.nl> wrote in message news:633c3$47dc02bb$839b4533$18934_at_news1.tudelft.nl...
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>
>>No. Interpretation involves the assignment of meaning. It has little if
>>anything to do with behavior or operations.
>
> If you can define "meaning" without reference to behavior
> or operations, please do.
>

Suppose you have a symbol, "Red." Under an interpetation, meaning is assigned to a symbol by associating it with an object in the universe of discourse, in this case the color Red. So what part does behavior or operations play in that association? None that I can see. Received on Sun Mar 16 2008 - 03:48:02 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Yagotta B. Kidding: "Re: Object-relational impedence"
Previous message: Marshall: "Re: Object-relational impedence"
Maybe in reply to: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"
In reply to rpost: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"
Next in thread: Yagotta B. Kidding: "Re: Object-relational impedence"
Reply: rpost: "Re: Mixing OO and DB"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message