Re: relations aren't types?

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:19:33 -0500
Message-ID: <>

"John Jacob" <> wrote in message
> > > > The relation value in the attribute for each tuple is
> > > > a single value with defined operations. How does that differ from an
> > > > integer?
> > >
> > > Types are not atomic, values are.
> >
> > How does that answer the question about the difference between a
> > value and an integer value?
> The point is that while both values are "atomic", from the perspective
> of the operators being invoked, that does not mean that the types are
> in the same class. They definitely are not. The type Integer is a
> scalar type, while the type of a tuple is some tuple type, a
> non-scalar type.

I have yet to see a useful definition of scalar that does not include everything one can represent in a finite number of bits.

> Yes each tuple is a single value with defined
> operations, but those operations in general require that I know the
> attributes of the tuple type. No such requirement exists for inovking
> the integer "+" operator.

"A join B" requires you know the attributes of something? What attributes must you know? Received on Tue Dec 30 2003 - 23:19:33 CET

Original text of this message