Prev: Content-Type, was What is wrong with Applets?
Next: Can java classes be called as framework?
From: Lew on 14 Apr 2010 19:59
Stefan Ram wrote:
> Certain identifiers in Java designate either a
> variable or a method.
>
> For example, in
>
> void example( final java.awt.geom.Point2D.Double point )
> { return point.x + point.getY(); }
>
> »point.x« is a variable, while »point.getY« is a method.

And both are members of 'Point2D.Double', as 'Point2D.Double' is a member of
'Point2D'.

> So, it seems to me that one can teach that <object>.<name>
> or simply <name> always designates either a variable or a
> method, whenever <name> is written with a lowercase first
> letter (and is not a package name). (Even if you could find
> some exception to this rule, I would like to use this
> as a simplification for beginners classes.)
>
> Now, it would be niece if there would be a handy
> superordinate concept »?« of variable and method, so that
> could say that such a name always designates a »?«.
>
> I could use »entity«, but that would be too broad, because
> there are more entities than just variables and methods.
>
> I could use »member«, but that reminds much of C++ and also
> would only apply to <object>.<name>, but not to a simple <name>.
>
> So, does anyone know a most specific superordinate concept
> of variable and method, that is a word that designates both
> variables and methods, but not much more?
>
> For example, the most specific superordinate concept of
> cat and dog I can find right now is »Carnivora«. »Mammalia«
> also is a superordinate concept, but less specific; while
> »Canidae« is too specific, because it applies to dogs only.

I don't think there is one. In your specific example of something to the
right of a "dot", the superordinate (cool word) is "member". Methods, of
course, cannot be anything but members. But a local variable doesn't share a
superordinate with methods that I can think of other than "thingie".

Think from your own perspective - what do methods and variables share, other
than being Java fundamentals?

I don't find the search for a common concept very useful. What's the
superordinate between a boulder and a dog? Both occur in nature.

--
Lew
All distinctions are artificial.
From: Lew on 14 Apr 2010 20:06
Stefan Ram wrote:
> For example, the most specific superordinate concept of
> cat and dog I can find right now is »Carnivora«. »Mammalia«
> also is a superordinate concept, but less specific; while
> »Canidae« is too specific, because it applies to dogs only.

"Housepet" is more specific still. "Housepet that requires a license by law
in <such-and-such jurisdiction>" is more specific still. "Four-footed
mammalian housepet" more specific still. "Four-footed mammalian housepet of
the same species that I used to have when I was a kid" is even more specific.
"Four-footed mammalian housepet of the same species that has millions of
devotees and that I used to have when I was a kid" more so yet. "Four-footed
mammalian housepet of the same species that has millions of devotees and that
I used to have when I was a kid and has in historic times been worshiped as
the holy representative of a god" more so yet. "Four-footed mammalian
housepet of the same species that has millions of devotees and that I used to
have when I was a kid and has in historic times been worshiped as the holy
representative of a god and of whom a representative has eaten the country ham
we planned for dinner" more so yet again. "Four-footed mammalian housepet of
the same species that has millions of devotees and that I used to have when I
was a kid and has in historic times been worshiped as the holy representative
of a god and of whom a representative has eaten the country ham we planned for
dinner and ..."

--
Lew
From: markspace on 14 Apr 2010 21:43
Stefan Ram wrote:

> I could use �entity�, but that would be too broad, because
> there are more entities than just variables and methods.


It is in fact "member" if I understand what you are saying:


The members of a class type (�8.2) are classes (�8.5, �9.5), interfaces
(�8.5, �9.5), fields (�8.3, �9.3, �10.7), and methods (�8.4, �9.4).
Members are either declared in the type, or inherited because they are
accessible members of a superclass or superinterface which are neither
private nor hidden nor overridden (�8.4.6).


<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/names.doc.html#34757>

Now that include more than just methods and variables, so maybe that's
what you are referring to, there's no one word for just variable|method,
but it is ok to refer to those two as members, because the JLS does.
From: Lew on 15 Apr 2010 00:14
markspace wrote:
> Now that include more than just methods and variables, so maybe that's
> what you are referring to, there's no one word for just variable|method,
> but it is ok to refer to those two as members, because the JLS does.

Unless the variables are not members.

--
Lew
From: Mike Schilling on 15 Apr 2010 02:52
Lew wrote:
> markspace wrote:
>> Now that include more than just methods and variables, so maybe
>> that's what you are referring to, there's no one word for just
>> variable|method, but it is ok to refer to those two as members,
>> because the JLS does.
>
> Unless the variables are not members.

Right. If I were going to taxonomize names used in Java, local variables
and fields would be more closely related than fields and methods. The
result would look something like

namedObjects : packages types methods entities
types: primitiveTypes referenceTypes
referenceTypes: interfaces classes
entities: localVariables fields


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Content-Type, was What is wrong with Applets?
Next: Can java classes be called as framework?