What things "normally mean" has no place in computer science. You have to embrace the jargon to be able to think rationally in the space. This in no way detracts from this discussion.
When I say "Hickey nomenclature", I mean vis a vis classical philosophy or Hegel. Lay nomenclature only muddies the water. On Dec 20, 1:41 pm, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alyssa Kwan <alyssa.c.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No, identifiers are names. Identity transcends names. For example, > > in a distributed shared object system, multiple machines on the same > > network will have different identifiers for the same identity. > > > "Ordinary usage" isn't good enough for metaphysical discussions. > > There is a metaphysical discussion of identity which applies to this > > situation, and Rich Hickey has taken a particular position. His > > position is rigorous, internally consistent, and applicable to how > > most people in our culture model the world, e.g. it can be used to > > accomplish work by most of us. Most philosophical discussions of > > identity really mean equality, at least in Hickey nomenclature. > > Thanks for making my point for me: "identity" normally means something > other than what it means in "Hickey nomenclature". :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
