Re: relations aren't types?

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:e4330f45.0401021605.97df0ed_at_posting.google.com...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:<r96dnY5YyOUWF2iiRVn-uQ_at_golden.net>...
>
> > > It is not every type. There are also array types, relation types,
> > > tuple types, etc, etc.
> >
> > Since these are types with values and operations, how exactly do they
differ
> > from scalar types?
>
> They have components, or user visible components if you prefer.

You mean they have possible representations just like any other values.

> Scalar types does not have components, they have representations, and
> each representation may have several components or not.

Since one representation of an integer is an array of bits, I guess that means integers are not scalar. Right?

> For instance a matrix type does not have representations, a matrix is
> a matrix :)
>
>
> BTW IMHO the term "atomic" is confusion prone and we should avoid it.

I agree it is better to focus on values and types. Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 01:18:32 CST