Re: no names allowed, we serve types only
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:45:50 +1100
Keith H Duggar <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu> writes:
> On Feb 14, 12:41 am, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-s..._at_benfinney.id.au>
> > Keith H Duggar <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> writes:
> > > I'm wondering, do we really need A? Can we not simplify this
> > > header notion to just a set of types?
> > The point of a unique name is to be able to address the attribute.
> > Without it, there would be no way to distinguish between attributes
> > of identical types in the header.
> Which is why I said you could "copy" identical types to yield unique
> but related types.
You didn't say that, but thanks for the explanation. Okay, so the “copy type” operation yields a type that is identical to the original except for its name. What problem is being solved by this?
-- \ “Apologize, v. To lay the foundation for a future offense.” | `\ —Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | _o__) | Ben FinneyReceived on Sun Feb 14 2010 - 22:45:50 CET