Re: MV Keys

Jon Heggland wrote:
> And is the library/language distinction really that clear cut?
> Is the String class in the language or in the library?

Both. But the issue I'm trying to raise here is interface. And by those terms, we would say String is in the library.

> In any case, that wasn't really what I meant to ask. It seems you say
> that compound types breaks 1NF, but that it doesn't really matter much;

Yes; but that's just my opinion.

> and that the classification of types into compound and simple is
> essentially arbitrary.

Did I say that? I kind of believe that, but I kind of don't.

> What, then, is the use of talking about 1NF and
> simple vs compound types at all?

I think the choice of collections has a big impact on the utility of a language.

> This is the same argument Date uses to espouse the relation type (or
> type generator) as the only compound attribute type (generator)---it
> introduces minimal extra complexity, since relations and relational
> operators have to exist anyway, and it can handle both lists and sets.

The relational operators don't handle lists very well.

myList.removeAt(3)

vs.

BEGIN
delete from MyList where Index = 3;
update MyList set Index = Index - 1 where Index > 3; COMMIT Marshall Received on Fri Mar 03 2006 - 16:20:09 CET