Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

Keith H Duggar <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu> writes:

> On Feb 14, 12:41 am, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-s..._at_benfinney.id.au>
> wrote:
> > 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 Finney