Jon Heggland wrote:
>
> As long as the type of a bunch of values is well-defined, there is
> indeed no problem---indeed, that makes the two alternatives I outlined
> equivalent. However, if any attribute is a set (or list), you probably
> want (for convenience) to treat it as a single value of its constituent
> type when it contains only one value, I.e. "Jon" = { "Jon" }. A language
> that does this may exhibit undesirable behaviour in other places; I
> believe SQL has trouble with table literals because of this.
Can you say more about this? What kind of trouble?
Marshall
Received on Fri Mar 03 2006 - 01:59:41 CST
