Re: relations aren't types?

"John Jacob" <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:72f08f6c.0401011358.42f22a6b_at_posting.google.com...
> > > > Scalar is not a useful concept so I fail to understand your
question.
> > >
> > > So you advocate an untyped language?
> >
> > That's an absurd question.
>
> How so? From the discussion we have had so far, I am under the
> impression that you make no distinction between the types of different
> values.

You haven't been paying much attention then. I suggest you are arguing with yourself.

> > > First, the fact that any scalar can be represented with a finite
> > > number of bits (true of every value, scalar or otherwise) does not
> > > imply that any finite number of bits is a scalar. Second, and perhaps
> > > more importantly, the physical representation of the value in the
> > > computer system has no bearing on the logical model.
> >
> > What then is your useful definition of scalar?
> >
> > Remember that the logical model is an abstract model one can implement
with
> > real hardware without regard to the specifics of any actual hardware.
>
> From TTM: A scalar type is a type with no user-visible components.

Which in TTM is every type. Since scalar encompasses everything, why even mention it?

> > > The primary reason for types is to imbue our code with meaning that
> > > the compiler can understand and verify. The primary reason for scalar
> > > types
> >
> > You have yet to demonstrate that a useful definition of scalar exists.
>
> Again, what is your overall point?

Go back and read it. Received on Fri Jan 02 2004 - 01:53:01 CET