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.
On Dec 20, 12:56 pm, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Alex Osborne <a...@meshy.org> wrote:
> > Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Ah. So, like the confused situations you get with Java's mutable
> >> collections. Two lists are equal if they have the same contents in the
> >> same order -- but then you use one as a key in a hashmap, and then add
> >> an item to it, and boom! Clojure separates this stuff out because the
> >> Clojure vector's immutability makes its value stable given its
> >> identity. Refs and atoms and agents can encapsulate mutable state, but
> >> their identity (as defined by = and hash) is fixed rather than
> >> changing with its state.
>
> > Sort of. Identity (in the Clojure model) is not the same concept as
> > equality. Nor is it reference equality ("identical?"). The overloading
> > of terminology is somewhat unfortunate.
>
> > "By identity I mean a stable logical entity associated with a series
> > of different values over time." -- clojure.org/state
>
> > As Laurent mentioned the usual identities in Clojure are reference
> > objects: vars, atoms, refs and so on.
>
> >> And some objects (keywords and symbols) exist
> >> to be almost pure identity, used to label other things.
>
> > Symbols and keywords (and database IDs) aren't identities, they're
> > identifiers (names).
>
> It seems you're using "identity" a little bit oddly here. In ordinary
> usage, "identity" would indeed be close to synonymous with
> "identifier"; the way you're using it here is actually closer to the
> usual comp-sci concept of a "variable": a holder of mutable state,
> which can be pointed to a succession of different individual states.
>
> So part of this is a confusion arising from slightly odd or
> idiosyncratic terminology.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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
