Re: database systems and organizational intelligence
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 01:09:08 +0200
Message-ID: <40b67513$0$559$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
> Again, shorthand -- sometimes folks say "relation" when they mean "relvar"
> and I said "function" when it would have been more precise for me to say
> "funcvar" (ugh! Perhaps there is a better term already otherwise "function
> variable" sounds a lot better to me than "funcvar").
>
>
> Alright -- sometimes I can kick that precision part of my brain in gear but
> often I'm inclined to use shorthand, just as many others do. Fair
> nough? --dawn
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 01:09:08 +0200
Message-ID: <40b67513$0$559$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote: >>>Alfredo Novoa wrote: >>>>...Very very wrong. A relation is a constant. >>>So is a function. >>Just a few posts ago, you wanted to store something in a function. >>You can have it both ways - if the context makes enough of a difference.
> Again, shorthand -- sometimes folks say "relation" when they mean "relvar"
> and I said "function" when it would have been more precise for me to say
> "funcvar" (ugh! Perhaps there is a better term already otherwise "function
> variable" sounds a lot better to me than "funcvar").
>
>>In this case I'ld prefer you'ld stick with one.
>
> Alright -- sometimes I can kick that precision part of my brain in gear but
> often I'm inclined to use shorthand, just as many others do. Fair
> nough? --dawn
Sure. It would help if you explain the
expansions whenever you change them.
Received on Fri May 28 2004 - 01:09:08 CEST