Re: relations aren't types?
Date: 3 Jan 2004 06:15:41 -0800
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0401030615.6f7b437a_at_posting.google.com>
"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<Pr6dnf10XP1_8WuiRVn-tw_at_golden.net>...
> > > 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.
No, the contrary. I mean they have visible "structure", but not
possible representations.
What are the possible representations of a relation value?
I don't mean pictorial representations, of course. A table could be a
pictorial representation of a relation, but it is not the same sense
as in possible representation.
Natural language is confusing.
> > 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?
They are scalars because they may have different representations.
Regards
Alfredo
Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 15:15:41 CET