Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: relations aren't types?

Re: relations aren't types?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:42:02 -0500
Message-ID: <AsSdndYPZpzXomOi4p2dnA@golden.net>


"Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message news:slrnbvs3do.15h.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net...
> John Jacob <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> schrieb:
> > There *are* values that are not relation or tuple values. What should
> > we call these kind of values? Hey, how bout scalar.
>
> Maybe we should look at other type systems. What sorts of types do most
> type systems have? Product types, like the types of rows in relations.
> Sum types, like enum. Recursively-defined sum types, like lists.
> Polymorphic type constructors, like lists, vectors, or functions. Base
> types like integers.
>
> Types are types -- I don't understand your insistence on calling some
> types scalar and other types not scalar. What's the difference?
>
> And I have to ask, what's an example of a user-defined scalar type?

According to John's use of the word, an integer array type is a scalar type as is a complex number type. A tuple type, however, is not a scalar type. Received on Thu Jan 08 2004 - 23:42:02 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US