Re: Homoiconic relational programming language

Sampo Syreeni wrote:
...
> Before you jump in, let me outline my idea about how it should be done
> as well; no point in judging without counterpoint, you know... To me
> the RM is about axiomatic semantics, as opposed to intuitive ones (the
> latter have their value, they belong to the third level of the ANSI
> model, the conceptual one), so you have to be able to perform as a
> mathematician when developing the theory further. That means speaking
> about the theory purely based on the axioms/properties it follows. And
> so complex objects could in theory be admitted into the model...when
> they *behave* as though they were atomic values when referred to as
> such. ...

Isn't that what relation-valued attributes are? Received on Thu Apr 08 2010 - 21:02:06 CEST