Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:34:19 GMT
Message-ID: <%AGgg.17499$A26.405722@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

JXStern wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:25:04 GMT, Bob Badour
> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>Apparently, in your addressing scheme, one may not access memory through 
>>a single pointer. Instead, one must use three pointers.

>
> I just wandered (back) into the newsgroup yesterday for the first time
> in a while, and onto this thread in the middle of things, and have
> only read a few exchanges, but maybe this is the crux of Cimode's
> concerns about memory yada yada.
>
> Odd that this thread doesn't seem to use terms like "projection" or
> "composition" (maybe I did see "decomposition"). Or, y'know,
> "semantics".

We haven't gotten that far yet. We are still trying to make sense of what Cimode wants.

> The relational model really only uses one "relation", which is
> adjacency.

I disagree with the term "adjacency" as it implies physical location of some sort and necessarily refers to a physical representation of a tuple as opposed to the tuple itself--all the while ignoring the ability to name predicates.

[snip] Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 14:34:19 CDT