Re: relations aren't types?

From: Joe \ <joe_at_bftsi0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:53:46 -0800
Message-ID: <1072468375.178802@news-1.nethere.net>

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message <news:zfadndtXBIzU4XGiRVn-vA_at_golden.net>...

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

> > Why not just declare the two
> > cases as identical?
>
> Why not declare strings and integers identical and avoid all those pesky
> conversions too? Do you see the absurdity?

I'm having a horrible vision of the love-child of the relational model and 'dynamic' typing a la Smalltalk, Python, or VBScript...

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>     On the cans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
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 - 13:53:46 CST