Re: relations aren't types?

John Jacob <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> schrieb:
> All we really need are a set of operators that can extract new values
> from a given value. The original value is still a scalar. The
> representation just allows us a simple way to define all the operators
> necessary for dealing with the representation.

In that case, all values are scalar since the only way you access any value is via "operators that extract new values from a given value".

It's as if you're implying that there is some OTHER type, subsuming all the possible representations. Like dates, there is some pure date type which includes dates as structures, dates as strings, etc... But these are NOT the same type, since the operators which work on one will not work on the other. Received on Wed Jan 14 2004 - 02:17:56 CST