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

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:52:30 +0100, "Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote:

>So the set of values specified by the type is (in this case) a set of
>relations.

Indeed.

>But the set of values that a relation is ("contains") cannot be mapped to
>the set of values that a type is ("contains")

They can be mapped but then you are not mapping a relation to a type, you are mapping the values contained in the tuples of a relation to the values of a type. This is a value to value mapping.

>, ie. "a relation cannot be a
>type", if I understand you right ?

This is true, but this is not the same as you said above.

Regards. Received on Wed Nov 24 2004 - 13:32:25 CST