- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 21:20:13 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26958 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Michael Kay from comment #9) > I think the key feature of the property we have been calling "identity" is > that it is associated with things that have a life-history: a creation > event, often followed by mutation, and finally destruction. For such things, > identity is established by the creation event, and two things with different > history are not identical even if their properties are otherwise the same. > Integers do not have a life-history; documents do. The corrollory is the > existence of constructors which are not pure functions because each > invocation returns a distinct thing. Yes, I agree. (In reply to C. M. Sperberg-McQueen from comment #8) > What is at issue here, I think, is that we envisage having > operators whose results depend only on the identity of the maps, arrays, or > elements to which the operators are applied, or (roughly the same thing in > different words) we envisage having operators which expose the identity of > maps and arrays in much the same way that 'is' and '<<' and '>>' expose the > identity of nodes. Not for me. I don't need those operators at all, I just need to be able to do in-situ updates on maps and arrays. > To test my claim that we can express what we need to express without using > the term "identity" in the ways I continue to object to, let me suggest > wordings for some sentences which, I believe, accurately convey the intended > meaning. Could we open a separate bug for wording related to identity? It's a good thing to discuss, but I think it's distinct from the requirements we are trying to satisfy for in-situ updates, and it can get detailed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 21:20:14 UTC