Re: Why all the max length constraints?

Dawn wrote :

> That I know. That does not answer my question. I fully understand
> that one need not specify max length constraints if implementing only
> "in theory." I wondered if there were anything in the theory that
> might prompt implementations that have, perhaps as a side-effect, the
> need for or advantage when individual attributes are specified with max
> length constraints.

If you know that, then you know the answer to your question, which means there was no need to ask it, which makes it a silly question. I'll say it again: the relational model is orthogonal to type. That means the relational model makes no demands and imposes no restrictions on the types available (apart from the obvious requirement for a boolean type). It really is that simple. There really is nothing to see here.

> It hesitate to report that I still don't know the answer to my
> question, but I will research it differently and see if I can get
> further.

I think you do know the answer to your question, but the penny isn't dropping.

> It actually thought it would have a simple answer and that
> someone would have that answer handy enough to pass it along, but it
> seems you and others misinterpreted the question.

It does have a simple answer. That simple answer has been given on several occasions. Perhaps equally you aren't understanding or are misinterpreting that simple answer ?

> I wish I knew why, but I'm starting to suspect that others do not have a framework in
> which they could easily understand my actual questions.

This sentence is perhaps more educational than you truly intended.

> I'm starting to see that those who understand my questions are the ones who do not
> get angry with me.

Who's angry ? I'm certainly not; I'm not even exasperated at having seen a simple question answered simply by several people, yet you still don't seem to "get it". Ho-hum.

> If you have any interest in doing me a favor, Tony, I would really,
> really appreciate it if you could try to understand what I am asking
> and let me know if you are getting closer to understanding that.

I think I understand well enough what you're asking. I will, at risk of muddying the waters considerably, suggest that you read up on the language Euler, which was invented by Niklaus Wirth, and consider the difference between the proposed language and the language that was actually implemented; or, consider the difference between the Algol-68 report's definition of modes and the implementation that most compilers actually managed. This might help put the difference between what a model proposes and what implementers implement (and why) into perspective.

> It is no doubt an ignorant question but I'm quite sure it is not a stupid
> question.

I would suggest "irrelevant" and "unnecessary" as alternatives to "stupid". Or just plain "silly".

• Tony