Re: Negative Numbers in "Identity" or" Autonumber" fields

On Mar 21, 9:38 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 8:28 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>>It has to have at least one possible representation.
>
> >>>Can you elaborate? Why does it need at least one?
> >>>What breaks if it doesn't?
>
> >>How does one express any literal without at least one possible
> >>representation?
>
> > Okay, sure, yes, that's a point. But that's more of a structural
> > objection than a functional one. What breaks if a type doesn't
> > have literals?
>
> The basic ability to specify a value.
>
> > What about the model requires literals?
>
> A model for expressing values has to have a way to express them. I don't
> think I understand your question.
>
> > In the case of equality, I can point to what exactly breaks if
> > a type doesn't support it: join. Specifically equijoin requires
> > some kind of "equi-".
>
> > What breaks if a type doesn't have literals?
>
> Everything.

Hrm. Well, this is at worst circular and at best broad enough as not to be enlightening.

It's not particularly important if I don't get it, however; it's not a concept I care about at all.

Marshall Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 18:43:14 CET