Re: Why all the max length constraints?

(I'll take these points intentionally out of sequence, in order of interest/worth/whatever.)

Dawn wrote :

> I read 'em, but didn't memorize 'em, feel free to point me to a page
> number that answers my question.

If you aren't internalising anything you've read from them, including the basic point upon which one of them rests, why bother reading them ?

> Maybe it is a reasonable question to ask

Not really.

> and maybe there is a good reasonable response.

I could be mildly provocative and suggest the Principle of Incoherence may apply here.

> Maybe you know the good reasonable response and
> have decided not to offer it and trash me instead,

At time of this writing, my version of something approaching a reasonable response is at post number 49 on the Google list. Maybe you didn't read that far down ?

> or maybe you don't know the response either in which case we could both learn
> something from the thread.

Hm.

> This is SOOOOO frustrating I could scream!

Well then, we have at least one thing in common. As to why, I shall now jump backwards and a little out of sequence :

> Thankfully some like David, Marshall, JOG, x, mAsterdam, Jan and many
> others do try to discuss the topics, but I'm sure they are tiring of
> having so much noise in these discussions too.

Indeed they do. Jan, Mikito, Bob and increasingly Marshall are offering useful information, interesting, meaty topics for discussion and points of insight. Sadly, it's sometimes quite hard work to find the nuggets, but they are there.

> Why not answer questions, participate in the discussion,

When I feel I have something useful to say, even if it is only to urge caution and point to more learned sources then I try to. If my lattice chops were up to snuff I'd like to participate in the relational lattice discussions, for example. But they aren't, so I don't, and simply read instead.

> or ignore the thread instead of this approach?

Generally, ignoring this type of thread is a very worthwhile approach, and one I would recommend heartily. This one, however, was so impressively dopey, given the widely available material on the topic, that I couldn't resist. I will count that as my bad.

> What is your purpose for particiipating in this thread only to try to make this a discussion about me
> instead of the question I asked?

Someone else seemed to be coming to the same conclusion I came to some time ago, and I noted it. As for making things a discussion about you, the evidence would suggest you manage that quite successfully for yourself.

>> This particular thread is so close to being a troll,
> hogwash

Actually, it's darn close to being a troll, because (a) source material is readily available to answer the question; (b) you claim to have read at least one book which would have answered your question already, and (c) the question was asked in such a way that there are several on the list who were bound to answer in a sadly predictable way (surely after all this time we're past conflating SQL with the relational model of data ?). It was the c.d.t. equivalent of waving a red rag at a bull, as another poster noted elsewhere.

• Tony