Re: relations aren't types?

"Adrian Kubala" <adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net> wrote in message news:slrnc04jos.r0b.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net...
> John Jacob <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> schrieb:
> > I think this is the real power of the type system in TTM. I can
> > expose both in a single type. I can treat a scalar value as a whole
> > by invoking operators that take arguments of that type, or I can
> > access the components of some specific representation of the type and
> > manipulate those. I think that most type systems have a severe
> > short-coming here because they equate the physical representation of a
> > given value with the logical representation.
>
> I don't see how you can write functions which operate on dates without
> knowing something about the structure of the date. How would you write
> "year" without being able to extract the year from a date?

Suppose I have a date type physically represented as a large integer type as the number of days since July 19, 1965.

How is the year part of the structure of that date type? Received on Mon Jan 12 2004 - 23:03:32 CET