Re: Notions of Type

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:24:28 GMT
Message-ID: <wBnFg.51180$pu3.600216@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Marshall wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>In fact, I lack a pithy definition of algebra. (And worse, there are
>>>many senses of the word.) But one thing is common, and that
>>>is a datatype and binary operators that are closed over that
>>>datatype. Sometimes associativity of those operators is
>>>considered a requirement, but it seems a distant second
>>>to closure.
>>
>>Why binary? I sincerely doubt that requirement.

>
> I wouldn't call it a requirement; I've just noticed it as a common
> occurance. There is also the occasional unary operator, such
> as NOT in the boolean algebras. I can't think of any trinary
> operators off hand.

There are plenty. Substring, conditional (if/else) etc. Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 13:24:28 CDT