Re: relations aren't 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?

You did not explain it. You continue to say you explained and then betray your own misunderstanding of basic computer science terms like type generator and type specifier by denying that a *separate* production must exist in the language to deal with *scalar* types.

> > > 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.

An ad hominem attack is the last defense of an indefensible position. Received on Fri Jan 09 2004 - 05:14:54 CET