Re: Example of expression bias?

From: Cimode <>
Date: 20 Jun 2006 23:40:45 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Tony D wrote:
> J M Davitt wrote:
> > CJD calls them type constraints; they define the set of values
> > that constitute the type. Types are named, so the sets are named.
> >
> > The only thing I'd argue about in Cimode's definition is that
> > operators are part of the data type. In fact, D+D make the point
> > that the declaration of operators is orthogonal to the declaration
> > of types -- given that the types are extant before the operators.

> The issue I had with the long-form of Cimode's definition is that he
> takes domains to be separate from types; IIRC, to Cimode, domains are
> sets of all possible values, and a given type restricts which of the
> possible values from the domain are acceptable for that type (I'm sure
> he'll correct me if I have misrepresented his position in any way). I
No you understand right what I have stated.(Finally) It is not that data type is separate from domain, definition of data type is separate from domain type is derived from domain by restriction on permissible values.

> stuck with the type simply defining the acceptable values either
> explicitly by enumeration or by equations to describe the set. I'm open
> to convincing, but at the moment I'm not. (I have an argument that says
> a particular value belongs to a single type only, but that might kick
> off and it's now 3:20am, so I'm off to bed :)
It seems after 3 hours discussing, that you begin to get the RM definition of a relationship between a data type and domain. Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 08:40:45 CEST

Original text of this message