Re: FK -> non PK - bad design?

"Larry Coon" <larry_at_assist.org> wrote in message news:3E96F2EE.5DBE_at_assist.org...
> 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?

Well, not to be contrary, but I don't think I would. It sounds a little funny to my ears.

I just vaguely prefer plural table names, but I don't have a compelling reason for it. In contrast, I always use the singular for Java class names. (PostgreSQL uses singular for table names by convention, also.)

> > 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. :-)

Righty right!

> > (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.

You'll get no argument from me on that point!

Marshall Received on Sat Apr 12 2003 - 06:39:40 CEST