[plt-scheme] Denotation: barbarous neologism required

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:21 PM, John Clements
<clements at brinckerhoff.org>wrote:

> Suppose A represents B.  Do we say that A is the representation of B or
> that B is the representation of A?
>
> Concrete example: let the table represent the street, and my hand represent
> the car.  Do we say that my hand is the representation of the car, or that
> the car is the representation of my hand?
>
> I claim that the former is the standard one: that is, my hand is the
> representation of the car.
>
> Now:
>
> Suppose A denotes B.  Do we say that A is the denotation of B or that B is
> the denotation of A?
>
> Bizarrely, it appears that most people in the languages community use the
> latter.  That is: suppose that "(lambda (x) x)" denotes the platonic
> identity function.  I believe we say that the program is the denotation of
> the function, rather than that the function is the denotation of the
> program.
>
> This irritates me. I claim we need a new word for "the thing that A
> denotes".
>
> Is there already a standard term for this?
>
> John


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reification

Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20091113/5d4bfb0a/attachment.html>