Re: FK -> non PK - bad design?

Marshall Spight wrote:

> Well, don't we say "the set of integers" or just "the integers"
> when we're talking about Z?

Both of these are referring to the contents of the set. The first ("the set of integers") identifies the set by referring to its contents (integers). The second ("the integers") refers specifically to the contents of the set.

But to use your example, you'd say "the integer set," wouldn't you?

> And if we use singular, as in
> "i is an integer" we're talking about a specific number, and
> not an infinite set of numbers.

Yes, but I don't think this is relevant to my point. It's referring to a member of the set, not the set itself.

> It is interesting to note that many natural languages don't have
> constructs for singular vs. plural, so in those languages this
> issue doesn't come up.

Then neither would the controversy about singular vs. plural table names. :-)

> (There are also some languages with
> singular, dual, and plural, and you have to wonder what they
> would do. But I think they are all dead languages, so the issue
> is moot.)

English is such a hodge-podge of varying etymologies that it isn't surprising it's retained some of this, for instance the/both/all.

Larry Coon
University of California
larry_at_assist.org
and lmcoon_at_home.com Received on Fri Apr 11 2003 - 18:53:02 CEST