Re: relations aren't types?

From: Adrian Kubala <>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:41:05 -0600
Message-ID: <>

Bob Badour <> schrieb:
> [...] Thus "relation" refers to values of a generic type and not to a
> specific type, per se. [...]

I understand what a relation is. If anything, I'm fuzzy on the definition of "type".

Consider the type "student" which is defined as as the set of tuples: {<"joe", "schmoe">, <"sally", "strauss">}. In what way is this not a type, or not a relation? Received on Sat Dec 20 2003 - 19:41:05 CET

Original text of this message