Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:05:38 +0100, "Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote:

>> An User class can't map to an User relation because it is an absurd to
>> map types to variables or values (Date's 1stGB).
>>
>> An unidimensional collection of User objects maps to an User relation.
>> This is perfectly possible and it is not a great blunder.
>
>What is the distinction between "User class" and "unidimensional collection
>of User objects"

A class is a type, an object's collection is a value or a variable.

> that makes the first a blunder

To mix types with values or variables.

>, and the second not?

To map values to values and variables to variables.

>What IS an user class in your definition?

A type.

> What is an unidimensional
>collection? - a kind of "set of users"

A kind of list of user values.

>, that is objects of the same kind?

Not necessarily. Thy might be of different kinds.

Regards Received on Mon Nov 22 2004 - 13:10:34 CET