- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 23:30:23 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27001 Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |liam@w3.org --- Comment #5 from Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> --- A lot of the rhetoric around identity has of course come from implementation of programming languages - in C and C++ style languages identity is usually implemented as "machine address" - but atomic values such as an integer or character or floating-point number don't have a machine address, you can't write 6 to the location where 42 is defined since there is no such location: indirection is not generally used to access atomic values in such languages. The pragmatic use for identity becomes, "identity is the property that lets you distinguish two or more things efficiently, and gives you a handle to a thing that may change over time". That does not define identity, of course, except through its properties. This is not the same usage as mathematical identity, but is very common in programming language design and specification. Not all languages use the term "identity" for this concept, however. Perhaps we should rather say haecceity, "this-one-ness". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 23:30:24 UTC