Re: More on lists and sets
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:20:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4421dbc3$0$11065$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
>
> Hard to say, because it's a bit scattered and not always recognizable
> to the untrained eye. But if I'd have to point to one paper it would
> probably be Principles of Programming with Complex Objects and
> Collection Types (1995) by Buneman, Naqvi, Tannen and Wong:
>
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/90087.html
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:20:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4421dbc3$0$11065$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Jan Hidders wrote:
> JOG wrote:
>
>>Jan Hidders wrote: >>[snip] >> >>>Moreover, integrating lists and bags into a >>>declarative set-oriented language is basically a solved problem as the >>>required ideas, knowledge and experience is already available in the >>>literature, although it is sometimes dressed up as "nested relational", >>>"object-oriented" or "xml" research. >> >>That appears to be some very extreme dressing up (but that's research >>for you). Can you recommend any seminal references for this solved >>issue Jan?
>
>
> Hard to say, because it's a bit scattered and not always recognizable
> to the untrained eye. But if I'd have to point to one paper it would
> probably be Principles of Programming with Complex Objects and
> Collection Types (1995) by Buneman, Naqvi, Tannen and Wong:
>
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/90087.html
Wow! Thank you for this excellent reference, Jan, thank you :-) Received on Thu Mar 23 2006 - 00:20:41 CET