Re: Expressions versus the value they represent

From: paul c <>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:49:19 GMT
Message-ID: <3kOwn.1469$z%6.401_at_edtnps83>

Cimode wrote:
> On 12 avr, 16:35, paul c <> wrote:

>> Within D&D's approach I don't think RVA's are at all 'ill defined'.
>> They seem reasonable to me as far as they go.  That doesn't mean I like
>> them.

> hi paul,
> Within D&D, I sometime perceive RVA's as a half-baked attempt to
> formalize complex types.
> But that is just me.

As for me, I don't have the impression that Date touts RVA's, it's just that a relation definition being a type definition in the D&D approach, they are a consequence and so they are a possibility. Whether they are desireable is another question. Received on Tue Apr 13 2010 - 01:49:19 CEST

Original text of this message