Re: So let me get this right: (Was: NFNF vs 1NF ...)
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.moc>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:04:18 GMT
Message-ID: <CTQOd.357547$Xk.278687_at_pd7tw3no>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:04:18 GMT
Message-ID: <CTQOd.357547$Xk.278687_at_pd7tw3no>
DBMS_Plumber wrote:
> Wait a darn tootin minute -
>
> Y'all the the crowd who keep rabbitin' on about mathematical soundness
> blah blah blah.
>
> Suddenly the dificulties of obtaining your precious mathematical
> soundness is pointed out to you, and you start sayin' stuff like "Aww -
> that lil' fella don' matter none!"
>
> Me. I *care* about soundness. And this caring leads me to a position
> that rejects RVAs because RVAs are a problem.
>
i'm sure your motives are pure. that's not my question. i'd just like to know: "what is the theoretical problem with RVA's?"
not to mention opportunities (recursion? parts explosion?).
pc Received on Thu Feb 10 2005 - 23:04:18 CET