[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jeff Lowery scripsit:
> I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we seem to narrow our
> definitions of universal types to only those that have validatable
> membership and universal representation. There are a lot of well-understood
> types they fail both criteria.
>
> Prime numbers.
Say what? Every prime number has a unique lexical representation,
and there is an effective test for telling primes from non-primes.
That looks like universal representation and validatable membership to me.
Whether it's important to any particular user to actually validate is
another concern. If so, the receiver just specifies a local scheme that
specifies xsd:integer rather than jl:prime as the type.
Now if you wanted a type without either, consider "beautiful thoughts".
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders."
--Hal Abelson
|
