Re: relations aren't types?

From: Joe \ <joe_at_bftsi0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:44:45 -0800
Message-ID: <>

"Marshall Spight" <> wrote in message <news:y8_Gb.205873$_M.909925_at_attbi_s54>...

> I say: why bother with the conversion? Why not just declare the two
> cases as identical? I don't see any advantage to distinguishing between
> the two cases. (Maybe there is an implementation advantage.)

Perhaps if x and y have interdependent integrity rules, such as they must have the same sign or the point must be within a certain distance of (0, 0) or whatever. Such rules might be clearer with an encapsulated data type instead of leaving them up to rules on the tuples.

Joe Foster <>  Sign the Check! <>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!
Received on Fri Dec 26 2003 - 18:44:45 CET

Original text of this message