Re: relations aren't types?

"John Jacob" <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news: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?
> >
> > 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.

From a language grammar perspective, they may have named a production or two using "scalar", but I do not see any logical distinction. What can one do with a scalar that one cannot do with a non-scalar? Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 08:21:38 CET