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: What databases have taught me

Re: What databases have taught me

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 30 Jun 2006 12:20:45 -0700
Message-ID: <1151695245.144139.176850@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>


Bob Badour wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>
> > Mmmm, what I was trying to point out is that it is a somewhat
> > OOish idea to consider functions on a type as part of the
> > definition of that type.
> >
> > Given a set A, and a set B.
> > Given a function f: A -> B
> >
> > We would not *necessarily* consider f as part of the definition of A.
>
> I would. I wouldn't necessarily require all operations defined on a type
> be declared to the dbms, but the type is a set of values and a set of
> operations on those values.

Are you saying you "would consider f as part of the definition of A" or are you saying you "would necessarily consider f as part of the definition of A."

Other question:

given:
f: A, B -> C

is f part of the defintion or A, or of B, or both? What about C?

Just curious.

Marshall

PS. While you are at it, I need 500 words or more on "what I did during my summer vacation" by next Tuesday. Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 14:20:45 CDT

Original text of this message

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