Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

On Mar 19, 5:45 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 4:38 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>Daniel wrote:
>
> >>>Even so, it might be helpful to enumerate the properties that a thing
> >>>must have to be regarded as value, immutability, etc. Then we can ask
> >>>whether an instance of an ADT satisfies those properties.
>
> >>An ADT is not a value.
>
> > Non sequitur? Has anyone suggested that it is?
>
> I notice you have conveniently ignored everything else I wrote to pick a
> nit. Plonk.

I'm sorry if this discussion has made you angry and upset.

Best wishes,
Daniel Received on Mon Mar 19 2007 - 23:24:08 CET