Re: cdt glossary TABLE
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:20:20 +0200
Message-ID: <42d5a1b6$0$32141$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> No, no, a thousand times no!
>
> When I say "table", I mean "table"!
>
> When I say "relation", I mean "relation" (or maybe relvar).
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:20:20 +0200
Message-ID: <42d5a1b6$0$32141$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
David Cressey wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>If you can afford to be informal - think of Down's law. >>If you need to be concise, don't use 'table'. Use 'relation'.
>
> No, no, a thousand times no!
>
> When I say "table", I mean "table"!
>
> When I say "relation", I mean "relation" (or maybe relvar).
Your glossary looks extremely boring. Received on Thu Jul 14 2005 - 01:20:20 CEST