Re: [boost] [system] system-0.2 request for comments

From: Alec Ross (alec_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-25 09:56:14

In message <hnubc2hoe0ok5pjem2hfia6ejdhile71cc_at_[hidden]>, Gennaro Prota 
<gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:55:39 -0400, "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>wrote:
>
...
>>
>>In the example, I call "part number" an identifier. It is a number assigned
>>to parts to uniquely identify them. It is common for an identifier to serve
>>no other purpose and its value be immaterial. So it is pretty close to what
>>the database folks call a key. But the value of keys is often material, as
>>in the manufacturer table in the Wikipedia article.
>
>Yeah, pretty clear. I wouldn't like this to shift into the classical
>Parkinson's bicycle shed, so I'll just have a short try: "identifier"
>is IMHO a good name except for the fact that it is immediately
>associated by C++ programmers with its grammar meaning, as Jeff
>noticed. The term I've most frequently heard for the database-related
>concept is "id", which is of course short for "identifier" but doesn't
>have the drawback above. OTOH it's probably a bit too short for
>library usage. Alternatively, I can see "newtype", "strong_type",
>"strong_typed" or "identified"(!?). Given that the context of usage is
>a derived class definition I have a slight preference for the first
>and the third one, though I don't object to the current name either.
>
The term Object ID, or OID, seems to be common in some circles. 
Drawbacks in this context tho' are that it does not necessarily 
correspond to a data member('s value); and there might be more than one 
data member whose value would uniquely identify the object.

-- 
Alec Ross