Re: Values have types ??

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:59:55 -0700, Costin Cozianu wrote:

>> Could be integer, real, string...
>> 

        Indeed, why not? Surely yes. That's what the three little dots at the end of my phrase mean, they are called an 'ellipsis' and are meant to a open set of unspecified alternatives.

>> 	The discussion was about values implicitly *in a RDB*.  There,
>> a value will *always* have a type.  So your trap catches no mice... for
>> this kind of mouse always live in a RDB.

        If you were less biased against D&D you'd see these few people tend to have good points, and that in the Bible analogy they sometimes question the prophets of the faith...

        Anyway that's irrelevant, because you gave a representation without a type, so we can't even agree about its precise meaning without assuming a type... you end up inadvertently proving what you seem to want to refute.

> In the above case I'd propose that the MST is, well, {2}.

        That meaning? You see, the type is part of the meaning...

> 2 then has the "type" {2}

        So what?

-- 
 _   Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra     +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \  http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/         +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ /  Answer to the list, not to me directly!    +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \  Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro