Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:45:00 -0500
Message-ID: <cleccb$q3d$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
news:tCxed.294876$MQ5.202563_at_attbi_s52...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:cldvjl$hj9$1_at_news.netins.net...
> >
<snip> We should probably start talking about what the nested
> relational model would look like, and what operations it
> would support. I understand academia has been over
> this ground a lot....
If we think of the type definition including operations and have an
extensible type system, then perhaps we could start with some generic
"thing" and call that type Object. Then we could extend that object, add
some primitive types such as int, double, char, short, boolean, long, and
float and then provide a standard library that users can extend as needed.
In fact, I think such systems are already out there. What would we lose if
we used Java for defining types?
--dawn
Received on Sat Oct 23 2004 - 21:45:00 CEST