Extended Type Design.

[Bruno Medeiros]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:01:35 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A symbol is a name to which is 'bound' a value.
>>  ...
>>
>>> Here, we bind a new value to the symbol x:
>>>      x = 4;
>>
>> I used to use the verb 'to assign' for this concept. I guess that's still
>> okay or must I modernize <G>
> 
> You may want to modernize. "Assign" doesn't quite catch the notion of 
> indirect reference, and from a couple of posts I understand that this is 
> a source of confusion.
> 

Huh, " "Assign" doesn't quite catch the notion of indirect reference", 
what do you mean by that? I too was thinking that "assign" is a much 
better term than "binding".

> A very useful way to see "int x = 4;" is that the symbol x is bound to 
> the Platonic number 4. The 4 itself cannot change. You can rebind x by, 
> say, writing ++x. That unbinds x from Plato 4 and binds it to Plato 5. 
> Once this is clear, the notions of values and references clarifies a lot.
> 

Dear Gods. Yes, that conceptualization is correct, but again, how is it 
any better than "assign"/"assignability"?

   A very useful way to see "int x = 4;" is that the symbol x is 
assigned to the value 4. You can reassign x by writing ++x. That assigns 
x to the value x+1.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D