Re: relations aren't types?

"John Jacob" <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:72f08f6c.0401080841.452a275f_at_posting.google.com...
> > > You mean the scalar type generator.
> >
> > Nope. I mean using the productions of the language. No generator is
required
> > because expressions involving no generic types or operations cannot
generate
> > any new types.
>
> Then how do I define a new scalar type!

I already explained that: Using the products of the language. Do you lack sufficient understanding of computer science terms to comprehend the statement?

> > > > Which type generator? There are several.
> > >
> > > Yep, and scalar is one of them.
> >
> > No, sorry, but your assertion is simply incorrect. Specific declared
types
> > do not need generators. Generic types and generic operations define
> > generators.
>
> Specific declared types do not need generators, but they do need a
> specifier, a scalar type specifier to be specific.

You are an idiot with no desire to communicate. I am adding you to my twit filter to save time. Received on Thu Jan 08 2004 - 21:23:46 CET