Re: Concurrency in an RDB - another question about recursive definitions
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:43:03 GMT
Message-ID: <HCNsh.3601$1x.61816_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Thanks and okay, to put it bluntly, I take it that using B to stand for
> a relation in this way is nonsense.
>
> And I guess it should go without saying that domain B is
> static/unchanging too, if we want persistent relation values.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:43:03 GMT
Message-ID: <HCNsh.3601$1x.61816_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
paul c wrote:
>> paul c wrote: >> ... >> >>> Given relation : B = { {a,b} | a in A and b in B } /* Using C-style >> ^ >> | >> Relations are not domains -----------------------/
>
> Thanks and okay, to put it bluntly, I take it that using B to stand for
> a relation in this way is nonsense.
>> One can describe the extent of a domain as a relation. >> The extent of domain B is infinite. >> ...
>
> And I guess it should go without saying that domain B is
> static/unchanging too, if we want persistent relation values.
It is no more or less static than the domain Integer. I agree it should go without saying; however, it should be said if necessary or helpful. Received on Sun Jan 21 2007 - 18:43:03 CET