Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies

Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>

>> Bob Badour wrote:

(I made that syntax qualification only so it wouldn't read as if I was denying your "{}" versus "{{}}" point.)

The semantics of types demand inequality
> for any two values with different most specific types. A set has a very
> different type from what it contains just as a forest is different from
> a tree or a flock is different from a goose.
> ...

No argument. I just want to see what happens when all values in the triples of tuples are sets of individuals and a relation is in a kind of canonical form when those sets are all singletons. (Not sure if that would deny rva's.)

> ...
> I suggest a more interesting question to ask is whether one should allow
> implicit type conversions between a singleton set and its contents.
> Another is whether one should allow implicit type conversions of any kind.

Could be. Maybe that's in fact what I'm talking about ... (if I'm talking about anything!)

p Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 23:39:44 CET