Re: Operationalize orthogonality

[Quoted] When I read "...arithmetic a bit differently than they way you were probably taught in school", my hackles raised. I may have had a university education!

[Quoted] I don't think you follow the discussion. It's not about the relational model, it's about implementing types in DBMS's. Tony was specifically separating types from the relational model. I think that his comment [Quoted] about the "obvious requirement for a boolean type" says as much as if I said "We use digital computers so of course we use binary codes".

[Quoted] My problem is in seeing how to get from a super-simple DBMS which only has boolean types to one which has more complex types. Specifically, I can't see how this can be done _without_ introducing any new concept, idea, element, whatever. Moreover, I don't think a comparison operator is enough. It might seem obvious that the binary string "11" is [Quoted] greater than "10", but it's not true if I use Grey code rather than BCD. And in both cases, we rely on the order of the bits - and how [Quoted] does that concept get represented in booleans only? It's a circular [Quoted] arguement to re-state how BCD and ASCII codes work - I get that already! Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 00:25:14 CEST