Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 22:45:09 -0300
Message-ID: <pan.2004.06.02.01.45.09.226619_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>
Em Sat, 22 May 2004 12:22:42 +1000, thirdrock escreveu:
> there are a range of problems where allowing untyped data outweigh
> the disadvantages.
Namely?
Frankly, untyped data means merely the Alpha type, to use The Third Manifesto's terminology. That is, the domain of all possible values. This is effectively, if not formally, almost a 'non-constraint': anything goes.
While I can see this to be necessary in some very, very rare cases, how would this be preferrable to actually know something about what we're supposed to store, and thus be able to reject garbage?
>> In a relational database, I can define Colour with a datatype that >> accepts >> RGB values instead of english names.
>
> Yes, but CURRENTLY you cannot accept BOTH. The same is true of all
> strongly typed languages, not just relational databases.
Last time I checked Dataphor allowed for POSREPs, and all Ds should too. Now the example is a bad one, as English colour names are discreet while RGB values are continuous.
-- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +55 (11) 5685 2219 Av Sgto Geraldo Santana, 1100 6/71 leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm 04.674-000 São Paulo, SP BRASIL http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 03:45:09 CEST