Re: No exceptions?

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:56:33 GMT
Message-ID: <l0Yog.109500$IK3.32216@pd7tw1no>

Bob Badour wrote:

> paul c wrote:
> 

>> J M Davitt wrote:

...
>>>
>>> It almost seems as though you want to declare an analogue for DUM,
>>> syntax-check some expressions, and add attributes to your relation
>>> with the confidence that your expressions are still correct.
>>>
>>
>> Not exactly how I thought of it, but I think that's fair, after all,
>> one can add attributes, subject to one's external conception, to
>> relation definitions that don't have empty headings, in fact not that
>> the observation is of any use, that seems to be what happens when one
>> defines a relation with one attribute.

> 
> I suggest an empty candidate key in a relation with any number of 
> attributes is closer.

I don't catch your drift. If we are on the same page, then trying to equate a relation that has either no rows or one row with a relation whose name is mis-spelled is indeterminate. If doing that is the same then I would have to give up on my original question.

p Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 16:56:33 CDT