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

From: Rene de Visser <Rene_de_Visser_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:03:50 +0100
Message-ID: <co30g7$7ui$04$1@news.t-online.com>

"Alfredo Novoa" <anovoa_at_ncs.es> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:qbv9q0trk6nrno44af8r854bue0essjgl9_at_4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:32:58 +0100, "Rene de Visser"
> <Rene_de_Visser_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is true, but this is not the same as you said above.
>>In the relational programming language AP5, a type is simply a relation of
>>arity 1.
>
> Then it is a poorly designed language.

Could you expand on why you believe that was a poor design decision?

I haven't noticed any practical or theoritical problems associated with implementing types as relations of arity 1.

It has the advantage that unified constraint handling can be made over types and relations.
Subtyping and subcategorization also fits together cleanly with the unified constraint handling.

Rene. Received on Wed Nov 24 2004 - 16:03:50 CST