Re: data & code

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:23:41 +0200
Message-ID: <40b864a9$0$559$>

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

> Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote

>> mAsterdam escreveu:
>>>Which operators: domain implied/system defined operators only or
>>>including all special purpose/user defined operators?
>>All operators defined, definable or implicit, as long as they
>>are valid.  AFAIU.
>>>Extensions (yuck!)?
>>What do you mean?

> I think he is referring to whether when discussing a Type we are discussing
> all operations, whether delivered with a given DBMS or home-grown. The
> extensions are the features of a DBMS that permit the home-grown variety of
> operators to be defined, if I understand correctly.

Ah! Yes, indeed, this to (I forgot to mention that in my previous post).

>>>Where is 'class' in this terminology?
>>Nowhere, why should it be?  Class is just an OO missynonym for
>>type AFAIK.

> If there were no closed-minded people, we would not understand what it is to
> be open-minded, I guess.

There is a thin line between closedmindedness and conceptual integrity. Trying to achieve conceptual integrity by trying to clearly define terms should not (by itself) be dismissed as a sign of being closed minded. Holding on to those definitions to where the whole becomes a hermetic, tautological framework does not appeal to me, but it has been used in many disciplines.

> If I ask an employee or student to write or code a class, they know what I
> mean. So, the term is useful, even if it is a synonym of some other term.

I hope they do :-) Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 12:23:41 CEST

Original text of this message