Re: relations aren't types?
Date: 2 Jan 2004 21:01:08 -0800
Message-ID: <72f08f6c.0401022101.4d734ff0_at_posting.google.com>
> > 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?
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 Sat Jan 03 2004 - 06:01:08 CET
>
> Go back and read it.