Re: No exceptions?
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:32:12 GMT
Message-ID: <wFXog.109417$IK3.45509_at_pd7tw1no>
>
> Empty heading: like DEE and DUM have empty headings?
> ...
>
> Well, in that regard, it's already done -- in DEE ad DUM, no? And I
> think it's correct - but somewhat confusing - if you want other names
> for those relation values.
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:32:12 GMT
Message-ID: <wFXog.109417$IK3.45509_at_pd7tw1no>
J M Davitt wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>> J M Davitt wrote: >> >>> paul c wrote: >>> >>>> Bob Badour wrote: >>>> ... >> Maybe instead of saying "defining a header", I should have said "in >> advance of entering a header". I had in mind that an "empty" header >> would be assumed.
>
> Empty heading: like DEE and DUM have empty headings?
> ...
Yes. (Sorry, I should have said heading instead of header.)
>> My peculiar view doesn't require me to ask "what is the predicate of >> such and such a relation". This will sound ridiculous to most people >> I think because one would ask "well, what good is a database whose >> predicates we don't know?". OTOH, one aspect that for me defines a >> relational engine is precisely that it must not circumscribe even in >> the most indirect of ways what predicate a particular relation has, >> its whole value is in being to manipulate relations without knowing >> that - otherwise it would be an application!
>
> Well, in that regard, it's already done -- in DEE ad DUM, no? And I
> think it's correct - but somewhat confusing - if you want other names
> for those relation values.
>
> 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.
>
p Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 23:32:12 CEST