Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:41:05 GMT
Message-ID: <lLUgg.17734$A26.412437@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Cimode wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
> 

>>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.

> 
> You are trying to make sense.  JXStern has again addressed the real
> issue here and you want to make him believe he did not concentrating
> attention on me.  Concentrate on the subject at hand.

I did concentrate on the subject at hand. I objected to his characterization of the relational model.

>>>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 Mon Jun 05 2006 - 06:41:05 CDT