Re: What databases have taught me
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:36:41 GMT
Message-ID: <Z_zog.3373$pu3.81956_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
> I agree completely, though the product type gives you (essentially)
> tuples; the next obvious step would be proper relations as (minimally)
> powersets of these product types. I think that those operations would
> fall out nicely from the product type.
>
> Still missing are constraints; however, I have a white paper burning a
> hole in my book bag, related to this very thing. Witness Alloy
> constraints and model elements as annotations on Java code:
> http://cag.lcs.mit.edu/~marinov/publications/KhurshidETAL02AAL.pdf
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:36:41 GMT
Message-ID: <Z_zog.3373$pu3.81956_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
erk wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>
>>I believe a structurally, statically typed language with a >>product type as its fundamental collection, (along with >>some relational operators) would be *most* interesting.
>
>
> I agree completely, though the product type gives you (essentially)
> tuples; the next obvious step would be proper relations as (minimally)
> powersets of these product types. I think that those operations would
> fall out nicely from the product type.
>
> Still missing are constraints; however, I have a white paper burning a
> hole in my book bag, related to this very thing. Witness Alloy
> constraints and model elements as annotations on Java code:
> http://cag.lcs.mit.edu/~marinov/publications/KhurshidETAL02AAL.pdf
I don't have time to read this paper right now. Recalling the last paper you cited referencing Alloy, I didn't see anything in it that I thought competed with predicate calculus. Are you suggesting it has some advantage for constraints over a WFF ? Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 20:36:41 CEST