Re: Values have types ??

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news: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.

I don't find anything inelegant or fuzzy about the verb to have.

> 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).

Relation is actually more elegant and proper. Relationship is usually reserved for relations among people, but english speakers find relationship very familiar and relation quite strange. Most english speakers are more familiar with the noun relation as a synonym for the noun relative. Received on Tue Sep 09 2003 - 01:01:11 CEST