- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 22:22:17 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26958 --- Comment #11 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> --- Michael Kay is quite right that the property of object identity is necessary to distinguish between objects with different histories. Conversely, we can talk about objects having different histories if and only if they are different objects. Since the determination of identity or non-identity of things with similar structures and values requires more care from language designers, and more attention from language users, than the identity or non-identity of immutable and/or history-less things, it is not surprising that the term "identity" often pops up in discussions of such things; there is no need, however, to depart from the normal meaning of the word "identity" in order to discuss them. In particular, there is no advantage in trying to restrict the term "identity" to mutable objects or objects which can have different histories; it only confuses things. Jonathan Robie seems to have understood my reference to operators which distinguish things based solely on their identities as a proposal for some relatively specific abstract syntax; it was not. We envisage having a language in which some constructs have observable effects which depend on the identity or non-identity of some things. If we are not going to have such constructs, then how will anyone tell whether or not the language has in-situ updates or not? JR suggests opening "a separate bug for wording related to identity" and appears to want to regard comment 8 as not relevant to the bug. But comment 8 is merely responding to a question asked towards the bottom of the original bug report. And (as I am getting a little tired of pointing out) it's very difficult to have a useful discussion if some participants insist on using terms in special meanings, without definitions, even after requests for clearer wording, or definitions, have been made. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 22:22:19 UTC