Re: [Caml-list] OCaml's variables

[oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>]

Hi,

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 01:49:46PM +0200, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> The name "variable" has been used for centuries by the mathematicians
> to denote exactly names that refer to values (of course immutable
> values, we're talking about mathematical objects her). There is no
> point in trying to change it because some people conflate this notion
> with mutability.

Hmhhh.
"Some" people? As far as I remember, I heard these arguments quite often.


> 
> (When you write (x + 1), the value denoted by "x" is an unknown that
> depends on the context/environment; in particular it may vary when
> used in different contexts.)
> 
> The name "variable" is also used in the expression "type variable",
> which denotes for example the 'a in
>   val id : 'a -> 'a
> and which is clearly not associated to any form of mutation.
[...]

Hmhhh, and what about imperative languages?
What part did they broke?
And why did they "misuse" the word "variable" and in which way?

Is it because of mutability, which may break all these
used "mathematical metaphors"?

Can you elaborate on why "variables" are the wrong term or a 2bad" term
in imperative languages and not in functional languages?

The picture is not completely clear, where the imperative approach did it wrong.

Ciao,
   Oliver