Re: What databases have taught me

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2006 08:39:09 -0700, Marshall wrote:
> >>
> >> Side note: in a strongly typed language "extension" of an operation can be
> >> accomplished only through an "extension" of the type (actually a class of).
> >> This happens by adding a new type to the class, so that the operation
> >> extension be defined on that new type.
> >
> > I believe you are descring OO here, yes?
>
> Actually any typed system with user-defined relations on types, I don't
> think that it is any specific to OO. Nothing prevents RM from allowing
> polymorphic values in tuples. Also tuples themselves could be made
> polymorphic as well (to support mixed logics, for example, or to attach
> some constraints etc).

Mmmm, what I was trying to point out is that it is a somewhat OOish idea to consider functions on a type as part of the definition of that type.

Given a set A, and a set B.
Given a function f: A -> B

We would not *necessarily* consider f as part of the definition of A.

Marshall Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 11:39:29 CDT