Best way to halt Java process?
in [Java Programming]
|
Prev: encrypted javamail MimeMultipart
Next: Urgent DIRECT CLIENT Openings: 1.Websphere Portal - Developer, 2.ITIM-TAM Analyst, 3. IT Project Coordinator / Project Analyst
From: Lew on 15 Jun 2010 09:18 ilan wrote: >>> But it seems that maybe I don't have a clear understanding of what you >>> mean by the "interpretation" of the "formal" part. >>> >>> What do you mean? > Lew wrote: >> Pretty much the same thing we mean when we interpret the results of a >> computer program in terms of the human world. > ilan wrote: > Is this interpretation "in terms of the real world" specified by formal > logic? Because I was refering to this interpretation - and I had no idea > you had intended this interpretation was formally defined. I am still > not sure you meant that. Did you? > Well under five minutes of research illuminates the knowledge gap. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(logic)> WIYF -- Lew
From: ilan on 15 Jun 2010 11:03 Lew <lew(a)lewscanon.com> writes: > ilan wrote: >>>> But it seems that maybe I don't have a clear understanding of what you >>>> mean by the "interpretation" of the "formal" part. >>>> >>>> What do you mean? >> > > Lew wrote: >>> Pretty much the same thing we mean when we interpret the results of a >>> computer program in terms of the human world. >> > > ilan wrote: >> Is this interpretation "in terms of the real world" specified by formal >> logic? Because I was refering to this interpretation - and I had no idea >> you had intended this interpretation was formally defined. I am still >> not sure you meant that. Did you? >> > > Well under five minutes of research illuminates the knowledge gap. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(logic)> > Huh? Thats what you meant? You interpret java programs as desribed in this link? Really? -- ilAn
From: Lew on 15 Jun 2010 13:42 ilan wrote: >>>>> But it seems that maybe I don't have a clear understanding of what you >>>>> mean by the "interpretation" of the "formal" part. >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean? Lew wrote: >>>> Pretty much the same thing we mean when we interpret the results of a >>>> computer program in terms of the human world. ilan wrote: >>> Is this interpretation "in terms of the real world" specified by formal >>> logic? Because I was refering to this interpretation - and I had no idea >>> you had intended this interpretation was formally defined. I am still >>> not sure you meant that. Did you? Lew wrote: >> Well under five minutes of research illuminates the knowledge gap. >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(logic)> > ilan wrote: > Huh? Thats what you meant? You interpret java programs as desribed in > this link? > > Really? Wow. Wow. I provided that link in direct response to your question about what interpretation was in the context of formal logic since you seemed ignorant of what that was. You and I both interpret computer programs in that way. Computer programs, from a perspective expressed upthread, are statements of a formal logic. It was also stated upthread that computer programs and formal logic have no meaning. That is not true. They have meaning through their interpretation. I really don't know how to be any clearer. Sorry. Please stop asking the same question again and again. -- Lew
From: ClassCastException on 16 Jun 2010 00:38 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:27:51 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote: > "ClassCastException" <zjkg3d9gj56(a)gmail.invalid> wrote in message > news:hv1kf6$rdk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Let me clarify: a global mutable error flag that isn't actually >> supposed to change more than once is an ugly hack to work around the >> lack of something like init(), had it proved to be lacking. > > You insist on calling a private instance field "global". If you write a program with a mutable field visible throughout the entire program, then I consider it to be a global even if it's because your program consists of a one-instance class with an instance field. A *public* mutable instance field in a singleton is a global of sorts even if the program has other user-written classes in it. There are ways of writing Java so it doesn't look like it has a global variable, and by stricter definitions of the term doesn't technically have one, but still has the dependency patterns created by having one, and it's really those dependency patterns that are "considered harmful". >> A shared mutable used to indicate a temporary error condition that will >> be toggled when the condition arises and when it dissipates, >> repeatedly, is a non-hacky use of a widely-visible mutable. >> >> The former leaves the bad taste; the latter does not.
From: Mike Schilling on 16 Jun 2010 01:30
"ClassCastException" <zjkg3d9gj56(a)gmail.invalid> wrote in message news:hv9kgf$j4c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:27:51 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote: > >> "ClassCastException" <zjkg3d9gj56(a)gmail.invalid> wrote in message >> news:hv1kf6$rdk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> Let me clarify: a global mutable error flag that isn't actually >>> supposed to change more than once is an ugly hack to work around the >>> lack of something like init(), had it proved to be lacking. >> >> You insist on calling a private instance field "global". > > If you write a program with a mutable field visible throughout the entire > program, then I consider it to be a global even if it's because your > program consists of a one-instance class with an instance field. You can consider it whatever you like, but you'll be alone. |