• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:09:38 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200201312140.g0VLeuj19647@d...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <3C599F10.4090204@b...> <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6362@HQ5> <200201312140.g0VLeuj19647@d...>

On Thursday 31 January 2002 04:40 pm, Joe English wrote:
> Common Lisp has a notion that seems applicable to XML.
> In Lisp, a type is just a predicate; a value belongs
> to the type if the predicate returns non-NIL when
> applied to the value.

I think this is fairly common in most type systems... you have the 
"is-a" predicate that tests the composition of the cariable to 
determine if it meets the criteria for a type. I think static typing 
might cause many people to think that type is somehow bound to a name.

Some folk at DEC SRC (Cardelli?) did some interesting work on the 
notion of "type".

• References:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Bill Lindsey <bill@b...>
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread