Re: How to efficiently make an "history" ?

"Todd Gillespie" <toddg_at_linux128.ma.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:9mlr6l$g71$1_at_geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> kesako <kesako_at_mail.com> wrote:
> : This is because *it* aims to be narrative! I wanted to express the
concept I
> : wanted to reach. As you most probably know it, personal narrative is
much
> : less accurate but much more powerfull to express idea. Try to tell your
> : girlfriend you love her in DDL ;)
>
> "Wandering Explanation, Pointless Metaphor"
>
> :> Secondly, SQL has no "fields" -- tables are made of
> :> rows, rows are made of columns and columns hold values. This is
> :> important!!
>
> : I didn't know rows were made of columns. I thought that tables were made
of
> : rows *and* columns.
>
> A is in B, B is in C, thus C is comprised of B and A.
> columns are in rows, rows are in tables, tables are comprised of rows and
> columns.
>
> Correct, of course, but that doesn't affect columns being a part of rows.
>
> : Why are you seem allergic to the "field" word? We both seem to
understand
> : what it means and I don't see a possible confusion with something in
SQL.
>
> Celko has made a living by being accurate.

Where was the inaccuracy? If one says "car" instead of "automobile", is one being inaccurate? Accuracy doesn't demand the existence of only one term per concept. It also doesn't demand using the term that happens to have been contrived for a particular area of discussion rather than the generic one that existed long before. Received on Thu Aug 30 2001 - 20:01:03 CEST