Re: Arbitrary Constraints
From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:54:48 -0400
Message-ID: <pgvllc.lo4.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>
>
> I think it makes a lot of sense to think of this as working towards
> normalization rules for constraints.
>
>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:54:48 -0400
Message-ID: <pgvllc.lo4.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net>
Marshall Spight wrote:
> "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
> news:hbcllc.lf2.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...
>> >> What I would like to do now is determine if the most commonly encountered >> "must have" constraints out there in fact have commonalities to them so >> that they can be handled with a finite number of types, macros, or >> utilities, and so their apparent arbitrariness can be categorized and >> "normalized" as it were.
>
> I think it makes a lot of sense to think of this as working towards
> normalization rules for constraints.
>
>
Thanks. I think I will probably just need more examples from my own projects.
Right now the target practice project only needs column comparisons, so for now it looks like I am going to punt and put in simple operations like <, >, == and so forth and allow them to be linked to views as filters or to tables as constraints.
-- Kenneth Downs Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to email meReceived on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 18:54:48 CEST