Re: relations aren't types?

> > How do I define a new ... type?
>
> Using the type definition productions of the language.

You mean the scalar type generator.

> > Where
> > is the ... type generator?
>
> Which type generator? There are several.

Yep, and scalar is one of them.

> > Do we not need user-defined ...
> > types?
>
> Yes, of course. I have never suggested we do not.

Then we need a type generator that is different from the relation and tuple type generators. How bout we call it the scalar type generator.

> > 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.

There *are* values that are not relation or tuple values. What should we call these kind of values? Hey, how bout scalar.

> > 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.

Sort of like Tutorial D, with a scalar type generator. Received on Tue Jan 06 2004 - 19:34:58 CET