Relation name = address?
From: JOG <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk>
Date: 18 May 2006 10:37:44 -0700
Message-ID: <1147973864.064854.315380_at_j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Is a relation's 'name' in fact a pointer? Relation names obviously don't come under the remit of the information principle, yet they are essential to database manipulation and querying. Are they hence an acceptable/necessary exception?
Date: 18 May 2006 10:37:44 -0700
Message-ID: <1147973864.064854.315380_at_j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Is a relation's 'name' in fact a pointer? Relation names obviously don't come under the remit of the information principle, yet they are essential to database manipulation and querying. Are they hence an acceptable/necessary exception?
In TTM's cogent discussion of OID's Date & Darwin talk about "a database relvar might reasonably have an attribute whose values are (say) ... 'database relvar names'". This strikes as possibly generating a form of addressing/dereferencing procedure. Jim. Received on Thu May 18 2006 - 19:37:44 CEST