Re: relations aren't types?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:06:14 GMT
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:7LednbSL0rosnm2iRVn-hQ_at_golden.net...
> The point is all types are atomic.
It seems likely that we are using different definitions of the word "atomic."
Marshall Received on Mon Dec 29 2003 - 18:06:14 CET