Re: Sets and Lists, again

x wrote:
> "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 ?

I understand each of the above words individually, but not as packaged here. Ball notes are notes about ball game scores or something else? Misses are unmarried women? Clue me in.

> If not, why not ?
> If yes, they keep a list or a set ?
>
> :-)
Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 14:29:52 CEST