Re: data & code

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40b860da$0$559$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
>
> > mAsterdam escreveu:
> >>Which operators: domain implied/system defined operators only or
> >>including all special purpose/user defined operators?
> >
> > All operators defined, definable or implicit, as long as they
> > are valid. AFAIU.
>
> Benefit: It is clear. No ambiguities.
> Two drawbacks:
>
> 1. We'll have to make a distinctions when using
> the word domain in the mathematical sense
> (rational number) or in the IT sense (float).
>
> The consequence would be: A 'floating point number'
> would not be a (complete) type anymore.
>
> 2. People use the word 'class' for that.
> So it demarcates between people who stick to that,
> and the people using type for it, and avoid
> the word 'class'.

It sounds like Type can either be defined as "Domain" or as "Class". So, perhaps it should be considered a superclass of each of these. In that case, a Domain is a Type and a Class is a Type and when we use the word Type we could be talking about either, but if we want to talk about one in particular -- Domain (sans operators) or Class (with) then we use those terms. Because some are opposed to using the word "Class" maybe they could have a designator on Type if they need to use it to discuss Domain + Operators. Type+ perhaps could be a synonym for Class.

Type
  Domain is a Type
  Class is a Type
  Type+ = Class = Domain + operators

I'm not tied to Type+ (the + is not used as a closure function or any other mathematical meaning) and could drop the additional term myself, but others seem to need to have a synonym for Class.

Just a thought. --dawn Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 16:13:19 CEST