> Instead of describing these things as "X is of type Y", I'm
> thinking it
> might be easier to define the value space through a
> transformation from a
> lexical representation to a set of values which may or may
> not involve an
> explicit cast operation. I'm much happier saying "treat X as
> of type Y for
> this operation" - that leaves a lot more flexibility and room
> for fallbacks.
Isn't it possible that the value space of, say, a prime number type would
be narrower than an interpretation of it's lexical space would lead you to
believe? You're sure to have addressed this concern before, but I missed it.
Anyway, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree with the "treat X as
of type Y for this operation" paradigm. But then you're still left with
the case where a lexically value representation does not sit well with the
primitive type I want (or was told) to use. Then I don't know if I made a
wrong assumption or you misrepresented to me the type that the lexical
definition was suppose to represent. Or, it could be that there's a data
error.
I may have to take Tim's advice, and swear off T-words. Just leads to
lengthy threads.
>
> (Thinking about things like scientific notation makes me think that
> fallbacks to multiple possible approaches for something as
> simple as a
> 'float' makes sense.)
>
> Simon St.Laurent
> "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
