Re: Translating constraints to RM Terms

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:41:32 +0100, Paul <paul_at_test.com> wrote:

[snip]

>To go further, imagine a universal type that was a union of the set of
>every possible type you could want. You set every column to this type
>and then have column constraints to restrict each column to the values
>you want.

     I could want a type that is a local phone number, a string with picture "999-9999". I could want a type that is a student number for Thompson Rivers University, a string with picture "999-9999". Complications may ensue.

>Maybe this would link in with the thread on NULLs in that your universal
>type would only need a single universal NULL?
>
>Note: I'm not seriously advocating this, just arguing a logical point to
>see if it reaches an absurdity.

     Already there, already there.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 18:47:29 CDT