Re: New RDBMS implementation

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:409a3c92.12440458_at_news-read3.maxwell.syr.edu...
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:13:16 -0300,
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Leandro_Guimar=E3es_Faria_Corsetti_Dutra?=
> <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Now what I mean is that if you do any D embedded from a host
> >language, how do you control transactions if your D has only
> >single-statement (actually grouped statement) transactions?
>
> I said that the "single statement transactions" would be the default
> behavior, not the only.
>
> It would be a problem if you had to build a huge statement.

It would also be a problem if you had to mix the two languages in one transaction (even it is short ).

> Yes, but what I mean is that a pure functional database language would
> not have relvars!

> Can you imagine a business relational database without real relvars
> and views?

Do you say one cannot mix a pure functional database language with a RDBMS that has relvars and views ?

I thought the whole idea of a "pure" functional language is the lack of side effects ( functions are functions, not procedures)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=