Extended Type Design.

[Bruno Medeiros]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That is what really happens, but won't help understanding references. So 
>  it is not useful for that purpose.
> 
> Andrei

Yes, that you've said already, what I would like to know is why. :P
What's the issue with assign and references?

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