Re: relations aren't types?

> >> The OTHER type IS the scalar type. Dates as structures don't exist,
> >> only the components of the possible representation, i.e., the year
> >> component, the month component, etc.,. Dates as strings are not
> >> dates, they are strings. It's just that an operator exists to
> >> extract the string representation of a date from a given date value.
>
> These aren't types you're talking about, according to standard CS
> definitions. A type has to have values.

I can't imagine a definition of value that would exclude dates. A date is just as much a value as 5. I have to say that Chris Date and Hugh Darwen are much better at explaining all this than I am. TTM (second edition) is a very clear exposition on the subject. In the meantime, I'll read up on Haskell and we'll have this discussion again in a few months.

Regards Received on Fri Jan 16 2004 - 05:04:39 CET