|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Disambig-class)|
I made some changes:
- object is not general enough. entity is better, especially since object has a specific meaning in programming languages (where things like type aliases are not objects, but do participate in name resolution).
- Name resolution is also called name lookup.
- The previous text was very vague about examples. It mentioned operating systems (?), network protocols, virtual memory, and various types of programming utilities. I introduced a clear separation between name resolution in computer languages (with a discussion of some of the relevant issues there (such as static vs dynamic lookup)), and name resolution in computer networks.
- I changed the "See also" dynamic/static scoping links to just link to Scope (programming) (which will contain discussion of both)
-- Eelis 17:49, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
Use Context should be formally defined
I would like to see a section on 'use context' which is the semantic domain defined by the algorthyms mentioned in the text of the article.
For example, in the introduction the phrase 'used in a certain context' infers ANY context. It is thus inclusive of valid and invalid 'use'. The use context is the valid semantic domain of use.
For example C# interfaces ARE NOT THE SAME as C++ abstract methods because the 'use context' is different (see article on Virtual Inheritance).
Also the difference in inheritance scope (of the lines of inheritance) in C# (single implementation inheritance) and C++ (mulitple implementation inheritance) is another example of a 'scope level' that has major impact on the use context of classes.
A brief enumeration of the language independent 'scope levels' such as static/vs/dynamic, language binding, accessibility, visibility and MII/vs/SII would be most helpful to articulate what a 'use context' is. A taxononmy (as opposed to a parital and simple categorical list) would be cover a lot of ground.
In summary a 'use context' is the semantic domain defined in a language as specified by the language mechanisms that define the valid 'use context' of a code element.
Do we have to use Usama bin Laden as an example? I think this is quite unappropriate. Maybe just use "John Smith", or if it has to be a well known name "Michael Jackson" (of which certainly multiple exist). Blonkm 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like it was replaced with George Bush. Just slightly less controversial ;) —MattGiuca (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This appears to three three topics with nothing holding it together. A lead would definitely help but should we turn this article in to a disambiguation page and split the topics out into separate articles? --Kvng (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)