Re: Expressions versus the value they represent
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:49:19 GMT
Message-ID: <3kOwn.1469$z%6.401_at_edtnps83>
> hi paul,
>
> Within D&D, I sometime perceive RVA's as a half-baked attempt to
> formalize complex types.
>
> But that is just me.
>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:49:19 GMT
Message-ID: <3kOwn.1469$z%6.401_at_edtnps83>
Cimode wrote:
> On 12 avr, 16:35, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
...
>> Within D&D's approach I don't think RVA's are at all 'ill defined'. >> They seem reasonable to me as far as they go. That doesn't mean I like >> them.
> hi paul,
>
> Within D&D, I sometime perceive RVA's as a half-baked attempt to
> formalize complex types.
>
> But that is just me.
>
As for me, I don't have the impression that Date touts RVA's, it's just that a relation definition being a type definition in the D&D approach, they are a consequence and so they are a possibility. Whether they are desireable is another question. Received on Tue Apr 13 2010 - 01:49:19 CEST