Re: relations aren't types?
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:44:02 -0600
Message-ID: <slrnc0cdli.99p.adrian_at_sixfingeredman.net>
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster <joe_at_bftsi0.UUCP> schrieb:
> "John Jacob" <jingleheimerschmitt_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The OTHER type IS the scalar type. Dates as structures don't exist,
>> only the components of the possible representation, i.e., the year
>> component, the month component, etc.,. Dates as strings are not
>> dates, they are strings. It's just that an operator exists to
>> extract the string representation of a date from a given date value.
>
> We're neither supposed to know nor care how a "scalar" date type is
> implemented "under the blankets". It could be a structure, a string,
> a count of days since 1899-12-30, seconds since 1970-01-01 midnight
> UTC...
These aren't types you're talking about, according to standard CS
definitions. A type has to have values.
It seems like we're going in circles, so if I hear either of you say "scalar" I'll just remind myself that you're talking about a type class or abstract data type as seen from the point of view of the library user. Received on Thu Jan 15 2004 - 07:44:02 CET