Re: data & code
From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 19:25:11 -0500
Message-ID: <c93che$bb9$1_at_news.netins.net>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 19:25:11 -0500
Message-ID: <c93che$bb9$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote
in message news:pan.2004.05.26.23.16.26.352271_at_dutra.fastmail.fm...
> Em Thu, 27 May 2004 00:47:48 +0200, mAsterdam escreveu:
>
> > I am still looking for 'type'.
>
> Would saying that a type is a domain plus its operator be OK?
In that case, I'll vote for sticking those operators into the definition just so I agree on LGFCD on something ;-)
Then Type = Domain + Operators defined for that domain. This allows us to discuss Types as being scalar or composite without suggesting this is wrt anything else.
Cheers! --dawn Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 02:25:11 CEST