Re: abnormal forms

From: Marshall Spight <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 16 Apr 2006 13:32:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1145219550.109698.181770_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>

Bob Badour wrote:

> Asssuming that sva means an attribute with any type not a relation, an
> rva and an sva have different types. One is a relation and the other
> isn't. Thus one can never express an rva as an sva, and cardinality is
> meaningless for a generic sva.

Please allow me to propose a subtle adjustment to the above sentence. Rather than say cardinality is "meaningless" for a generic sva, I would say rather that it is a compile-time constant of value 1. While the two are mostly synonymous, the second opens up the possibility for generic code parameterized on cardinality to work on svas.

Marshall Received on Sun Apr 16 2006 - 22:32:30 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Marshall Spight: "Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface"
Previous message: Marshall Spight: "Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface"
In reply to Bob Badour: "Re: abnormal forms"
Next in thread: Bob Badour: "Re: abnormal forms"
Reply: Bob Badour: "Re: abnormal forms"

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

Original text of this message