Re: Object identity

David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
(snip)

I think the OO community needs to spend a lot more time properly
defining concepts like object identity,

Seems like almost everybody agree that any unique identifier will do,
and that almost if not all all programming languages uses a memory
address for this.

value-types versus
object-types etc.

A value-type is any type that is not an object type.

Bad luck, these two examples are relatively well defined AFAIK.

The discussions on comp.object reveal disagreement
over the fundamentals. I haven't seen a book on OO that is anywhere
near sufficiently formal.

Given the very numerous and different existing object models and
approaches to OO, no usable definition could be made IMHO that would
take each and every particularity into account - either the definition
would rule out large parts of the OO world, or it would be more of a
list of exceptions and arbitrary stuff than a usable, formal,
theoretical definition.

<troll>
Even the RDBMS world (I mean existing SQL systems) manage to be somewhat
standardized and consistent in contrast !-)
</troll>

Some proper science should stop all that silly rabbiting on.

And spoil much of the fun too !-)


--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'onurb@xxxxxxxxxxx'.split('@')])"
.