|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
This remember me when, in the previous century, Microsoft wanted to add pointers
in java (they wanted pointers and pointers on methods because they needed it to
improve compatibility with COM/DCOM the MS component model).
At that time Sun was saying no and was arguing that to use references is better
and safer (than pointers), especially if they are symbolic references. They
allowed MS to implement (in their java VM) references using pointers, however
refused to add pointers in the Java language.
One of Sun arguments was that symbolic references were intrinsically safer than
pointers because they don't designate directly memory locations (in the opposite
of pointers). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Nooooo - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:42 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
I don't see where the jury has a clear definition of symbol to
work with. And a patent examiner might not be entirely sure
either. English is one of the most precise languages, but
context is still essential, even then double and triple
sometimes quadruple entendre are inescapable. I see where
prior art can be extremely valuable to constrain
interpretations. On the other hand I can see that prior art
could be such a rabbit hole.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
