Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:57:09 -0500
Message-ID: <clgmtm$27l$1_at_news.netins.net>
"Paul" <paul_at_test.com> wrote in message
news:417bce83$0$80657$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> >>A value is atomic (with respect to a system) iff that value has no
> >>internal structure from the point of view of that system.
> >
> > All you've really done is push the definition off to the definition
> > of "internal structure." What is that?
>
> I don't see the problem really, don't we all understand and agree what
> internal structure means? I think the key point of the definition is
> that atomicity is always with respect to a system rather than an
> absolute concept.
As soon as you have an extensible system, what does it matter whether there is a function to split out a date into parts today if we could write one to grab the month out tomorrow? --dawn Received on Sun Oct 24 2004 - 18:57:09 CEST