Re: DB required to list multiple D.I.V.O.R.C.E.S. & Re-marriages

In message <3c270e18.73866023_at_news.tcd.ie>, Paul Linehan <paul_at_not.a.chance.ie> writes
>
>
>Bernard Peek <bap_at_shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <c0d87ec0.0112201043.59809443_at_posting.google.com>, --CELKO--
>
>
>> In most jurisdictions the assumption is valid. If the application is to
>> be universal then it may have to cope with the other forms.
>
>
>To be truly universal, the solution would have to allow for multiple
>partner homosexual marriage and for polygynandry (and a mixture of
>both).
>
>
>To be *_useful_* however, is quite another thing.

Agreed. And it depends entirely on your use for the system. I'm reasonably happy that nobody is going to repeal any of the major laws of physics in the near future. I'm very suspicious when anyone suggests that I should restrict functionality of a system based on the current law of the land.

If asked to build a system for tracking marriages in the UK I'd probably build it to accept polygamous marriages. I know they exist and are recognised, to some extent, under British law.

-- 
Bernard Peek
bap_at_shrdlu.com

In search of cognoscenti