Re: relations aren't types?

> > 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?

It is certainly *not* every type. Why mention it indeed if that is the case. On the contrary, the scalar type is a central fixture of the relational model put forth by TTM, and is mentioned at least as often, if not more often, than relational or tuple types.

> > Again, what is your overall point?
>
> Go back and read it.

How you can come away from TTM with the idea that scalar is not a useful concept is beyond me. Why does TTM prescribe that in order to meet the requirements of a 'D', a language *must* include a scalar type generator in addition to a relation type generator, if only one is necessary? So I will ask you once again, what are you proposing? If you have no answer to this question, don't bother to reply. Received on Fri Jan 02 2004 - 23:01:08 CST