Re: Navigation question

On Feb 17, 6:47 am, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 10:10 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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:
>
> > > > 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,
>
> That does not mean that in every situation one can use the one without
> the other. It simply means that the one does not imply the other.
> One of us must be using flawed logic. Let me know if I'm the one not
> being logical, as I do wish to correct that, but at this point it
> seems to me that you bringing up a case where if one were to use the
> one they would need to use it in conjunction of the other would mean
> that one of these implies the other. Thanks. --dawn

Once again you dodge a technical question and reply with cotton candy.

Marshall Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 16:50:58 CET