| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]
"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message news:0ssue.127522$jg2.7110724_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> VC wrote:
> > The expression "for each x in e1 print e2" denotes "[ e2 | x <- e1 ]". Why > do you think that apart from this there is some need to give a separate > definition of "what print is in DAPLEX"?
OK, let's assume you are right and the expression means what you are saying it means, namely e2 is just a copy of e1, nothing more. A simple experiment would show there is somethng else going in addition to merely mapping the original list to its copy. Running the original statement (for each x in e1 print e2) would create some symbols on your screen or paper. So your hypothesis is wrong because it does not explain the observed phenomenon. My suspicion is that the culprit is 'print' (which magically disappeared from the list comprehension). What's your explanation ?
>
> -- Jan Hidders
Received on Thu Jun 23 2005 - 05:11:50 CDT
![]() |
![]() |