Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 5 Jun 2006 05:29:52 -0700
Message-ID: <1149510592.537664.77870@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Bob Badour wrote:
> 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.
.
Yes. but only in the last comments you posted. You objected to something that did not require objection as it was never put in doubt which basically makes most of your previous assertions totally irrelevant.

> >>>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 - 07:29:52 CDT