Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:59:51 -0500
Message-ID: <clpgap$e8$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:kr2dnWdh4J9yhR3cRVn-1A_at_comcast.com...
>
> "erk" <eric.kaun_at_pnc.com> wrote in message
> news:1098899907.484940.109850_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I can buy that atomicity is relative... that seems reasonable. So from
> > the point of view of relational theory, sets and lists have no
> > structure (their operators can do whatever they like, as with any other
> > type), but relations do.
> >
>
> The trouble comes when a relation can have an attribute whose domain is a
> relation. Now there's an incestuous relationship between the relational
> engine and the type engine. The type engine has to know about relations,
> in order to be a type engine. The relational engine has to know about
> relations in order to be a relational engine. But do they each know that
> the other one also knows?

Yes, yes, that is what I was trying to say in a previous post -- that I don't see any reason for divvying up the jobs when a relation is but one collection type that could be the type of an attribute. You said it etter. --dawn Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 02:59:51 CEST

Original text of this message