Where available, paragraph numbers should be used instead of page numbers. To pinpoint, simply include a page number at the end of your reference, in addition to any page numbers already included.įor example, in the following citation, the first number refers to the page on which the report begins, while the second number pinpoints the passage you’re referring to: 3. In OSCOLA referencing, referring to a specific page number within a source is called pinpointing. To save space in OSCOLA citations, abbreviations are used for the names of various publications and legal bodies.įor example, ‘UKSC’ is the United Kingdom Supreme Court, and ‘Cr App R’ refers to the Criminal Appeal Reports.Ī full, searchable index of these abbreviations can be found here.
Step 7 5.5 cross referencing full#
A footnote always ends with a full stop: 2. The format in which you present this information varies according to the type of source examples are presented in the following section. These footnotes contain full information on the source cited. 1) and appears after any punctuation like a comma or full stop: In Roberts v Johnson, 2 Carson J noted that … The number is displayed in superscript (i.e.
This context object takes care of knowing which objects need to be saved, and cleans everything up when processing is complete.A citation footnote appears whenever you quote from, paraphrase or otherwise refer to the content of a source in your text.Ī footnote is marked in the text with a footnote number, which appears at the end of the relevant sentence or clause. The way that I've seen this handled in some systems is to retain the references (because they properly capture the business concerns), and to add in an explicit TransactionContext object that owns everything loaded into the business domain from the database. If you're working on such a system, the kinds of referential loop described in this question may be considered poor design because there's no clear owner, no one object responsible for managing lifetimes. One example is Delphi's TComponent class, which provides cascading support - destroy the parent component, and all owned components are also destroyed.
In systems that lack garbage collection, where memory management is explicitly managed, one common approach is to require all objects to have an owner - some other object responsible for managing the lifetime of that object. What have you encountered that has given you the impression that this approach is bad-design? The cross-referencing issue you describe isn't an artifact of any design process but a real-life characteristic of the things you're representing as objects, so I don't see there's a problem. The examples you give are (to me, anyway) examples of reasonable OO design. Would this be bad design in OOP in general? Would/should all OOP languages allow this, or is it just bad practice? If it's bad practice, what would be the nicest way of solving this? (these products are just for making a point, the issue is not about wether or not certain products would relate to each other) Product monitor = new Product("monitor") we don't want to just display all other products in the same category). That collection could for example be products that people who are interested in this product might also be interested in, and we want to upkeep that list on a per-product base, not on same shared attributes (e.g. Person jack = new Person("Jack") Īnother example would be Product classes that have some Collection of other Products as a member. One example of this would be class Person that has Person spouse as a member. By that i mean class A has class B as a member, and B in turn has class A as a member. I encountered this a couple of times now, and i wondered what is the OO way to solve circular references.