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

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:33:27 -0600
Message-ID: <cp5i4r$61b$1_at_news.netins.net>


"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:5qfcr0tj6h8481rvh4ijn44lgfnjlkged8_at_4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:10:27 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis"
> <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:
>
>>> If types are not variables, it is wrong to equate types and variables.
>>
>>OK, this is the point I really don't get. It sounds like the 1GB is
>>concerned with using an OO Class to specify a Relation type.
>
> A relation variable, not a relation type.

So, the 1GB has nothing at all to do with using a class to define a Relation type, such as "Person" -- is that correct? Then if a variable is declared to be of the type Person, does the 1GB refer to that situation? I guess I'm asking for more precision in stating what practical is being identified with the 1GB. It seems like it is a flap about how one person says, for example "relation" when they really mean "relation variable" (translated to OO terms).

>> Is the issue that in OO there is no new coined term to
>>distinquish between a Relation specified as a type and a Relational
>>variable?
>
> No, but the complete mess in the OO terminology is the cause of many
> confusions.

I definitely understand that saying "I love my brother" could be confusing to someone who has two different terms for love -- one for romantic love and one for other non-romantic love, for example. So, the terminology could be the "cause of many confusions". My question is where the blunder really is. I think I posted a question on this a year or so ago too and I still don't see a practical blunder -- just some sloppiness in terminology. However, Date seems to argue that there is a practical problem in this mix. Do you think there is? Thanks. --dawn

>
> Regards
Received on Wed Dec 08 2004 - 01:33:27 CET

Original text of this message