Re: relations aren't types?
From: Joe \ <joe_at_bftsi0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:53:46 -0800
Message-ID: <1072468375.178802_at_news-1.nethere.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:53:46 -0800
Message-ID: <1072468375.178802_at_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 - 20:53:46 CET