Re: Sets and Lists, again
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:10:55 +0300
Message-ID: <e4utvh$pt7$1_at_emma.aioe.org>
"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148383663.147655.295060_at_j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Your view and mine couldn't be more opposite.
> I can agree with your asessment, however, especially given use of the
> > Converting a set to a list is absolutely trivial. Consider the
> All selects convert sets to lists, whether with or without an order by
> David Cressey wrote:
> 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?
following:
> >
> > select ROWNUM, PRESIDENT_NAME
> > from PRESIDENTS
> > order by ACCESSION_DATE;
> 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 ?