[Bug 27001] Terminology: identity

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27001

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com

--- Comment #2 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> ---
Thank you for the quotations from Grady Booch.  A couple questions occur to me
in that connection.

  - You and others have argued in the past that we must avoid the term "object
identity" because we have no objects and are not defining an OO language. 
Given that premise, is it not an inconsistency on your part to suggest that we
should follow what you suggest is an explicitly OO usage of the term
"identity"?

  - The quotations from Booch seem to me perfectly normal instantiations of the
definitions of "identity" found in standard dictionaries of English as "the
condition of being ... itself, and not another" (this formulation from American
College Dictionary, ed. Clarence Barnhart [New York:  Random House, 1947]). 
None of them seem to me to license your conclusion that integers and other
immutable things lack identity.  On the contrary, they also can be
distinguished from all other things, and thus they seem to fit his
characterization of identity.  Does he elsewhere say that integers have no
identical, or that 1 is not identical to 1?  Or do you believe that the
quotations you give license those conclusions?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 02:49:06 UTC