From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/02/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 218892429 Sender: news@organon.com (news) References: <5de62l$f13$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Organization: Organon Motives, Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1997-02-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article Piercarlo Grandi writes: > It names a particular implementation of that conceptual function; the > lexical item "+" names a particular conceptual function in maths, not > programming languages. The character "+" names procedures in programming > languages and functions in maths... Just to be clear: "+" does not stand for some _particular_ function in mathematics. It varies on context. Specifically, a) what the formal system is and b) what interpretation is being given to that system. > At times, BTW, I am not so sure that is such a good idea, for while the > function computed by the "+" procedure usually somewhat resembles the > function indicated by "+" in maths, the details (and vital ones) are as > a rule grotesquely different (just consider addition of 'real's and of > 'R'eals). Again - it depends on context. There are cases where the two will denote identical results. > I often think that the constant attempt to make programming languages > resemble maths (and this includes functional languages) are not quite > useful: Lisp, properly written, seems rather legible and yet does not > quite resemble maths notation, operator symbols and all that. Forget about the notation. That's irrelvant. The real problem is that _often_ (not always) the semantics are all wrong in those cases where they are "supposed to be the same or at least similar". > In all three language families (ada, smalltalk, c++) mentioned the > ability to use more or less arbitrary symbols for more or less arbitrary > implementations is regarded as significant notational convenience; > whether this actually amounts to much is not easy to say, but a > qualitative argument can be made: that in an OO context it gives > user-defined classes/types and the associated operations/procedures > notational equivalence with the builtin ones, and thus enhances > orthogonality and _notational_ abstraction, which may well be of some > use. Bingo. That's pretty much it in a nutshell... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com