Talk:Name resolution

Untitled

I made some changes:

• object is not general enough. entity is better, especially since object has a specific meaning in programming languages (where things like type aliases are not objects, but do participate in name resolution).
• Name resolution is also called name lookup.
• The previous text was very vague about examples. It mentioned operating systems (?), network protocols, virtual memory, and various types of programming utilities. I introduced a clear separation between name resolution in computer languages (with a discussion of some of the relevant issues there (such as static vs dynamic lookup)), and name resolution in computer networks.
• I changed the "See also" dynamic/static scoping links to just link to Scope (programming) (which will contain discussion of both)

-- Eelis 17:49, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Use Context should be formally defined

I would like to see a section on 'use context' which is the semantic domain defined by the algorthyms mentioned in the text of the article.

For example, in the introduction the phrase 'used in a certain context' infers ANY context. It is thus inclusive of valid and invalid 'use'. The use context is the valid semantic domain of use.

For example C# interfaces ARE NOT THE SAME as C++ abstract methods because the 'use context' is different (see article on Virtual Inheritance).

Also the difference in inheritance scope (of the lines of inheritance) in C# (single implementation inheritance) and C++ (mulitple implementation inheritance) is another example of a 'scope level' that has major impact on the use context of classes.

A brief enumeration of the language independent 'scope levels' such as static/vs/dynamic, language binding, accessibility, visibility and MII/vs/SII would be most helpful to articulate what a 'use context' is. A taxononmy (as opposed to a parital and simple categorical list) would be cover a lot of ground.

In summary a 'use context' is the semantic domain defined in a language as specified by the language mechanisms that define the valid 'use context' of a code element.

Shawnk^talk—-Shawn wiki 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Usama?

Do we have to use Usama bin Laden as an example? I think this is quite unappropriate. Maybe just use "John Smith", or if it has to be a well known name "Michael Jackson" (of which certainly multiple exist). Blonkm 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like it was replaced with George Bush. Just slightly less controversial ;) —MattGiuca (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

3 topics

This appears to three three topics with nothing holding it together. A lead would definitely help but should we turn this article in to a disambiguation page and split the topics out into separate articles? --Kvng (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I created a lede and worked on the "In computer systems" section, but it is actually more than one topic all by itself (check out Name Service Switch). So I'm thinking a disambiguation page is the way to go. Joeldbenson (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)