Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 5 Jun 2006 05:54:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1149512096.801753.144010@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>


Added to BB terms.

*idiot*,
*nonsense*,
*nonsensical*,
*plonk*,
*crank*,
*fuck yourself*

+ *do not waste my time* whining.

Cimode wrote:
> 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 - 07:54:56 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US