Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?

From: Alfredo Novoa <alfredo_at_ncs.es>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:07:42 GMT
Message-ID: <41b823e1.6035156_at_news.wanadoo.es>

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:33:48 +0100, "Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote:

>What, then, was then intention?
>Nothing wrong about "speaking loosely", but why intentionally?

Because I didn't have a lot of time and I thought that it would be enough for being understood.

Regards Received on Thu Dec 09 2004 - 11:07:42 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"
Previous message: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"
Maybe in reply to: Rene de Visser: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
In reply to Ja Lar: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
Next in thread: Alfredo Novoa: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message