Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]

From: Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_ucantrade.com.NOTHERE>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:02:37 -0700
Message-ID: <ejm5d19ood3l54o9524kbaeg4au81cvkv5_at_4ax.com>

On 11 Jul 2005 10:35:15 -0700, "vc" <boston103_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Would not you agree that the word "constructor" describes better what
>it does than a "selector" ? Also, with the object type that's its

No. In the case of a constant, the value is not being constructed. (For example, the value 3 already exists.) The value is being selected from the set of valid values for the type.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Mon Jul 11 2005 - 23:02:37 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: mAsterdam: "cdt glossary TABLE (was: Base Normal Form)"
Previous message: Gene Wirchenko: "Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]"
Maybe in reply to: Jon Heggland: "Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]"
In reply to vc: "Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate&Darwin?[M.Gittens]"
Next in thread: David Cressey: "Re: cdt glossary TABLE (was: Base Normal Form)"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message