Re: Navigation question
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:02:24 GMT
> 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
You are illogical.
, as I do wish to correct that,
If only you were telling the truth. Lying sack of shit.
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.
Don't you see? Dawn is the real Lucy. Neo is just a Lucy-bot. Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 17:02:24 CET