Re: no names allowed, we serve types only
From: Keith H Duggar <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <96a2f2d2-b37a-45a1-afa7-f2b1146b66ee_at_u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <96a2f2d2-b37a-45a1-afa7-f2b1146b66ee_at_u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 14, 2:38 pm, r..._at_raampje.lan (Reinier Post) wrote:
> 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.
KHD Received on Mon Feb 15 2010 - 07:52:11 CET