Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)
Date: 19 Apr 2006 04:20:24 -0700
Message-ID: <1145445624.303552.164310_at_i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
O Yes!
>>var Shippent base relation { No Integer, WareFrom Warehouse } key { No };
>>var Items base relation { No Integer, Article Char, Pieces Integer }
Looks once again on http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks .htm. In R-projection these two relation variables (but with other names "Shipment" and "Shipment.Items") really exist!!!
The expession...
CREATE CLASS SHIPMENT
...just other way to define these two variables, which you believe to
be "better design". But you cannot understand at all, that "CREATE
CLASS SHIPMENT" define a set of relation, once again - SET of
relations but your...
is not a SET - it is just single relation. Do you understang the
difference between single relation and SET of relations? It is the same
as difference between single relation and DB.
{
No INTEGER;
WareFrom WAREHOUSE;
Items SET OF //-- and this is a set of invoice lines
{
Article STRING;
Pieces INTEGER;
}
}
And (I'm sure now) that some persons here need to get a lessons of reading. My question is not "how to describe SHIPMENT variable in D language" at all. I know it very well. I speak about the type specification and type implimentation, about polimorphous names, about binding etc. and show with example how easy TheORM allows to realize some things. My question is "How D language can realize these things? if it can do it at all..."
Really such "high-level" answer make me laugh.
>>3. scalar type = object class
Where does this idea appear from??? This is true of course, but if you
think that TheORM is about this you really don't undertand what TheORM
is about. So your justified words is not about TheORM.
Received on Wed Apr 19 2006 - 13:20:24 CEST