Re: Why all the max length constraints?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 14:13:13 GMT
Message-ID: <Zdieg.14065$A26.332753_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
> This is extremely frustrating - no wonder some posters lose their cool!
> As everyone keeps telling you: the RM *does not require such
> constraints at all*. Why do you persist in saying it does (on its own
> or otherwise?) A cursory reading of Date would show that the RM
> imposes no limits on the type of data that can be stored, and you could
> download a free copy of Oracle, SQL Server or whatever onto your PC and
> verify that they allow you to create character data of no specified
> length.
>
> So why are you merely "getting closer" after all this time?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 14:13:13 GMT
Message-ID: <Zdieg.14065$A26.332753_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Tony Andrews wrote:
> dawn wrote:
>
>>>But my main concern is this, Dawn: do you now acknowledge that there is >>>nothing in SQL, let alone the RM, that /requires/ this approach? >> >>As soon as I understand it (which I did not before asking the >>question), then I surely will acknowledge that if that is my >>understanding. I'm getting closer. It surely is not the RM on its own >>that requires such constraints.
>
>
> This is extremely frustrating - no wonder some posters lose their cool!
> As everyone keeps telling you: the RM *does not require such
> constraints at all*. Why do you persist in saying it does (on its own
> or otherwise?) A cursory reading of Date would show that the RM
> imposes no limits on the type of data that can be stored, and you could
> download a free copy of Oracle, SQL Server or whatever onto your PC and
> verify that they allow you to create character data of no specified
> length.
>
> So why are you merely "getting closer" after all this time?
There's no stopping the invincibly ignorant. - DT Received on Sun May 28 2006 - 16:13:13 CEST