Re: Scalars & atomic values & variables

Bob Badour wrote:

>"Lauri Pietarinen" <lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com> wrote in message
>news:btck3p$7bt$1_at_nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>
>>What I meant was that if we decide that the only relational operators
>>are the ones that can
>>be derived from the primitive ones (or a set of primitives, such as
>>UNION, PROJECTION,RESTRICTION)
>>then a function that returns a relation from a string is not a
>>relational operator. Or it is some kind of hybrid,
>>which of course is perfectly OK, but not the kind I had in mind. Would
>>that be arbitrary?
>>
>>
>
>Thus, an array is a scalar type because some arbitrary list of operations
>apply to it but a tuple is non-scalar, but why?
>

An array is a scalar type because you can't use relational operators to, say, select an element from
the array. A tuple can be broken up or added to using relational operators. Well, that's my reasoning...

Lauri Received on Mon Jan 05 2004 - 16:31:17 CST