Re: object algebra
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:22:19 GMT
Message-ID: <vPq%b.50104$qW2.40229_at_newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b45d3ad.0402260754.386c0bcd_at_posting.google.com...
> Unless RDM changes its model, NULLs are forever an integral part of
> RDM as Codd himself has realized.
Codd was wrong.
> Why not prove him wrong by providing
> us will an implementation that does not require NULLs in the general
> case?
RDM doesn't require nulls in the general case. Only poor models do. Date has realized this.
I don't have the time to write an implementation, but it's not an implementation issue. It's a model issue.
> It is impossible, unless one resorts to generic modelling which
> in the extreme case, would result in a two-column table and is
> impractical.
Your assertion that it's "impossible", based on the fact that the people in this group haven't implemented a DB to do it?
> When/if you are able to implement www.xdb1.com/Example/Ex076.asp you
> will begin to see that pattern arising.
Unfortunately, that example illustrates precisely nothing. At least nothing recognizable as a problem I'd actually need to solve, though I'm not sure what problem is being referenced in it.
Sometimes I think Neo is just yanking our chains... Received on Thu Feb 26 2004 - 19:22:19 CET