Re: relations aren't types?

"John Jacob" <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:72f08f6c.0401051913.5beb993_at_posting.google.com...
> > The important concepts are generic types vs. specific types. The
relation
> > type generator defines a generic type and instantiates specific types as
> > necessary. Likewise, the tuple type generator defines a generic type and
> > instantiates specific types as necessary. Similarly for interval types.
>
> So what about scalar types?

Since scalar is meaningless, I would shorten the above to just: So what about types?

What about them?

> How do I define a new ... type?

Using the type definition productions of the language.

> Where
> is the ... type generator?

Which type generator? There are several.

> Do we not need user-defined ...
> types?

Yes, of course. I have never suggested we do not.

> If, as you suggest, scalar is not an important type category, then
> isn't it an unnecessary complication to include it in the data model?

Yes, I suggest it is an unnecessary complication. I think the proscription against non-relvar global variables suffices without the scalar verbiage.

> So I'll ask you once again, What does a relational language that does
> not differentiate between scalar types and relation types look like?

Like any relational language. Received on Tue Jan 06 2004 - 09:02:27 CET