Re: Translating constraints to RM Terms
From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:57:06 -0400
Message-Id: <a0cen2-10n.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
>
> Where?
>
> He said: column <> domain.
>
> Your constraint is a property of the table because it is not a column
> type constraint.
>
>
> Regards
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:57:06 -0400
Message-Id: <a0cen2-10n.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:14:12 -0400, Kenneth Downs
> <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote:
>
>>Jonathan gave a pretty clear answer on type <> domain,
>
> Where?
>
> He said: column <> domain.
my bad, I meant column <> domain
>
> Type and domain are almost always used as synonyms.
>
>> so I am with you so >>far. Most importantly, the restatement of the question as relationship >>twixt types and constraints is on the money. In my own mind I am also >>asking if the constraint is a property of the column or the table.
>
> Your constraint is a property of the table because it is not a column
> type constraint.
>
>
> Regards
-- Kenneth Downs Secure Data Software, Inc. (Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)Received on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 18:57:06 CEST