relations aren't types?
From: Adrian Kubala <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:43:40 -0600
Message-ID: <slrnbu76ps.j10.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net>
I've heard this a few places. A type is a set of values with operators. A relation is a set of values (tuples) with operators. While viewing a relation as a type seems pretty unenlightening, I don't see why it's outright *wrong*. Can anyone illuminate me?
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:43:40 -0600
Message-ID: <slrnbu76ps.j10.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net>
I've heard this a few places. A type is a set of values with operators. A relation is a set of values (tuples) with operators. While viewing a relation as a type seems pretty unenlightening, I don't see why it's outright *wrong*. Can anyone illuminate me?
Thanks. Received on Sat Dec 20 2003 - 01:43:40 CET