[sc34wg3] atomic?

[Robert Barta]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:01:51PM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> 
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 
> >"The only *atomic* fundamental types...."
> >
> >Shouldn't that be:
> >
> >"The only fundamental datatypes..."
> 
> I guess 'atomic' is meant as scalar (not complex) and is orthogonal  
> to the use of 'fundamental'.

Uhm, the physicist in me was awakened:

'Atomic' nowadays mostly means "I do not RECOGNIZE the internal
structure". It does not mean that someone else cannot see it or that
there is none.

And 'fundamental' is only something which religions define >8-/

<physicist back to sleep/>

\rho