Re: Values have types ??

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: 8 Sep 2003 09:18:37 -0700
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0309080818.54b8c769_at_posting.google.com>

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<AEQ6b.667$K_5.62956615_at_mantis.golden.net>...

> While values are elements in the set of values defined for a type, types are
> elements in the set of types defined for a value.

Agreed, types are elements of the set of types a value belongs.

But I still don't like the term "have". IMO it is a bit fuzzy.

There is a relation between values and types. The ones does not have sense without the others, but "values have types" is not a very elegant terminology for my taste.

BTW I prefer "relation" to "relationship", relationship does not exist in my native languages and it is a bit strange concept to me (the dictionary didn't help a lot).

Regards
Alfredo Received on Mon Sep 08 2003 - 18:18:37 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Anith Sen: "Re: how to set composite key as foreign key?"
Previous message: tmalik_at_cs.jhu.edu: "Checkpoint Vs Savepoints"
Maybe in reply to: Costin Cozianu: "Values have types ??"
In reply to Bob Badour: "Re: Values have types ??"
Next in thread: Anith Sen: "Re: how to set composite key as foreign key?"
Reply: Bob Badour: "Re: Values have types ??"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message