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, 16 Jan 2004 00:18:05 -0500
Message-ID: <WfednVhkLayw6ZrdRVn-hg@golden.net>


"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:GvJNb.64753$5V2.72075_at_attbi_s53...
> "Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc0cdli.99p.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net...
> >
> > These aren't types you're talking about, according to standard CS
> > definitions. A type has to have values.
>
> "Bottom" (sometimes written _|_) is a type that has no values.

Indeed. One must always remember an empty set is still a set. "Bottom" has a set of values and a set of operations. Received on Thu Jan 15 2004 - 23:18:05 CST

Original text of this message

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