Re: Base Normal Form
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 05:07:54 +0200
Message-ID: <42cf3f8a$0$93322$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> Actually, I didn't think there would be any discussion of the word "table".
>
> All I mean by "table" is the same thing that the word means in common SQL
> parlance. And that's what I expected everyone to understand that I meant.
> Oh, well.
>
> I'd be very surprised if the cdt glossary has no entry for "table". It
> seems a curious omission.
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 05:07:54 +0200
Message-ID: <42cf3f8a$0$93322$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
David Cressey wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
>>David Cressey wrote: >>>Jan Hidders wrote: >>> >>>>I think that would be very confusing. First, his table actually has >>>>ordering, functions don't. >>> >>>It's not clear to me that a table has ordering, if I understand you >>>correctly. >> >>Since you did not really define the notion of "table" but distinguished >>it from relation I made a guess that by table you meant something where >>the tuples were ordered as in a list. But since it's your term you get >>to define it, so if you say it is a bag, then it is a bag. Is it?
>
> Actually, I didn't think there would be any discussion of the word "table".
>
> All I mean by "table" is the same thing that the word means in common SQL
> parlance. And that's what I expected everyone to understand that I meant.
> Oh, well.
>
> I'd be very surprised if the cdt glossary has no entry for "table". It
> seems a curious omission.
Which misunderstanding is there about "table"? Received on Sat Jul 09 2005 - 05:07:54 CEST