Re: Scalars & atomic values & variables

Lauri Pietarinen wrote:

> 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...

oops, right... it's a relation and not a tuple that can be "broken up" by those operators - OK - I got
your point...

Lauri Received on Mon Jan 05 2004 - 18:08:27 CST