Re: Scalars & atomic values & variables

"Lauri Pietarinen" <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message news:3FF904F7.3060207_at_atbusiness.com...
> Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
>
> >Therefore, unless everyone is discussing the exact same set of objects
> >(which could be defined by a set of types) and operators, the use of the
> >term scalar is inexact and apt to be confusing as different values will
be
> >scalar in different models. When the whole idea of the model is to be
> >extensible, then the term scalar is also not very useful as adding in
> >another function/operator into the space and/or adding in new objects can
> >change what is and is not a scalar.
> >
> If we think of scalars in terms of what can be seen by relational
operators (union, projection, cartesian product, etc...) it would seem
> to me that defining scalars as values that cannot be "cracked open" with
these operators would pretty well do it for me.

That strikes me as entirely arbitrary. One can crack open a string using an operation that returns a relation of position/character tuples. I guess that makes a string non-scalar.

> So, if we have a string (or char) it is scalar (or atomic) because
> no matter how we join, union or project on that value we will not
> get any wiser as to what is "inside" it.

Oops, I guess you disagree.

I still see no useful definition of scalar. Received on Mon Jan 05 2004 - 09:51:45 CET