Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:30:20 GMT
Message-ID: <41a6160a.17546031_at_news.wanadoo.es>
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:03:50 +0100, "Rene de Visser"
<Rene_de_Visser_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Alfredo Novoa" <anovoa_at_ncs.es> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Well, I shooted too fast.
I supose that in AP5 a type is DESCRIBED by a 1-ary relation value
(but not a relation variable).
>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?
The problem is how to describe such relation value and how to define the operators of the type.
A relation is not a type but the set of values of a type can be viewed as a 1-ary relation value.
Regards Received on Thu Nov 25 2004 - 18:30:20 CET