Re: relations aren't types?

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: 3 Jan 2004 15:17:10 -0800
Message-ID: <e4330f45.0401031517.4ac11775@posting.google.com>

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message news:<uqEJb.2$Sv3.124_at_news.oracle.com>...

> Scalar in math is always a real number. As opposed to vector or matrix. It
> seems that programmers stretched this concept without bothering giving it
> definition.

There are some definitions:

3. <programming> Any data type that stores a single value (e.g. a number or Boolean), as opposed to an aggregate data type that has many elements. A string is regarded as a scalar in some languages (e.g. Perl) and a vector of characters in others (e.g. {C}).

www.dictionary.com

> If we follow Date's prescription "Think precisely", then
> shouldn't we dismiss this vague term?

No because it is useful. Do you have a better term?

For instance, inheritance is restricted to scalar types in all languages I know.

Date use the term all the time when he explains The Relational Model

Regards
Alfredo Received on Sat Jan 03 2004 - 17:17:10 CST