Re: Navigation question
Date: 16 Feb 2007 20:10:23 -0800
On Feb 16, 1:10 pm, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2:42 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 10:11 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 10:48 am, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > If navigation and iteration are independent,
> they are separate concepts
> > then you ought to be
> > able to rewrite my navigational, iterative pseudocode into
> > a style that is navigational but not iterative, and has roughly
> > the same network performance as the SQL I proposed.
> That does not logically follow. I am not speaking in favor of
> iteration, nor am I suggesting that one should always navigate. But
> one can navigate without iterating and, depending on your precise
> definition of navigation, can also iterate without navigating.
> > Please either 1) do so or 2) acknowledge that iteration
> > and navigation are not in fact independent.
> They are separate concepts, but there certainly can be instances where
> neither is appropriate. There might also be cases where if you want
> to iterate, you will also navigate or vice versa, but that is not
> essential. One does not imply the other.
If one does not imply the other, then you ought to be able to rewrite my iterative pseudocode in a style that is navigational but not iterative. I'll drop the efficiency part of the challenge, which removes any issues you might have with whether the technique is appropriate or the best fit or whatever.
Marshall Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 05:10:23 CET