Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:10:27 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:

>> If types are not variables, it is wrong to equate types and variables.
>
>OK, this is the point I really don't get. It sounds like the 1GB is
>concerned with using an OO Class to specify a Relation type.

A relation variable, not a relation type.

> Is the issue that in OO there is no new coined term to
>distinquish between a Relation specified as a type and a Relational
>variable?

No, but the complete mess in the OO terminology is the cause of many confusions.

Regards Received on Wed Dec 08 2004 - 00:55:17 CET