Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

From: Reinier Post <rp_at_raampje.lan>
Date: 14 Feb 2010 19:38:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4b78513f$0$19380$>

Keith H Duggar wrote:

>You think my proposal does not allow you to uniquely address header
>attributes? I think you need to try again, perhaps with less of a
>focus on "telling us" what sets and ordered pairs are.

Perhaps it would help if you explain what a 'copied type' is and how 'copying types' is more convenient than ordering or naming different attributes with the same type.


Received on Sun Feb 14 2010 - 20:38:39 CET

Original text of this message