Re: does a table always need a PK?

From: Tony Douglas <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net>
Date: 28 Aug 2003 05:22:41 -0700
Message-ID: <bcb8c360.0308280422.29cfa050_at_posting.google.com>


Hello there,

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:<BXL2b.953$v92.85314622_at_mantis.golden.net>...

> From my brief perusal online, I see no particular advantages to the Standard
> ML type system. In what sense do you see it as a higher level type system
> than the proposal in TTM? Perhaps, you can point me to the specific
> differences you find important.

I wouldn't say it was a higher-level type system, but I would say that it's a reasonable compromise between where we are (which is effectively nowhere, so far as I'm concerned) and TTMs type system. I'm not convinced (as yet) that the additional facilities of TTM (specifically the multiple possible representations and inheritance) are worth the trouble. That view might well change if, on working with a combination of relations & an ML-esque type system I discovered there were situations that just couldn't be handled acceptably.

  • Tony
Received on Thu Aug 28 2003 - 14:22:41 CEST

Original text of this message