Re: Sets and Lists, again

From: x <x_at_not-exists.org>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:10:55 +0300
Message-ID: <e4utvh$pt7$1@emma.aioe.org>

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1148383663.147655.295060_at_j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David Cressey wrote:

> > Your view and mine couldn't be more opposite.

> I can agree with your asessment, however, especially given use of the
> RM. It sounds like you disagree with mine. Are you saying that it is
> easier to model a list as a set and define all of the required
> operations on that set outside of the dbms than to have lists be
> integral to the model?

> > Converting a set to a list is absolutely trivial. Consider the
following:
> >
> > select ROWNUM, PRESIDENT_NAME
> > from PRESIDENTS
> > order by ACCESSION_DATE;

> All selects convert sets to lists, whether with or without an order by
> clause.

:-)

> > Converting list to a set is far from trivial.

> Yes! So why model data that way? Treat a list as a list.

What about ball notes ? Do misses still keep them ? If not, why not ?
If yes, they keep a list or a set ?

:-) Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 07:10:55 CDT