Re: Negative Numbers in "Identity" or" Autonumber" fields

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:38:44 GMT
Message-ID: <ocdMh.13173$>

Marshall wrote:

> On Mar 21, 8:28 am, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>Marshall wrote:
>>>On Mar 21, 4:00 am, Bob Badour <> wrote:
>>>>Marshall wrote:
>>>>>On Mar 20, 10:31 am, "JOG" <> wrote:
>>>>>>[...] Nothing in a
>>>>>>proposition should ever be hidden from the user. Propositions come
>>>>>>from outside of the logical layer after all. If an attribute is an
>>>>>>identifier then it clearly impacts on identifying items in the real
>>>>>I buy the "nothing should be hidden" argument, but I can't
>>>>>decide if a domain that only supports equality is hiding
>>>>>anything or not.
>>>>It has to have at least one possible representation.
>>>Can you elaborate? Why does it need at least one?
>>>What breaks if it doesn't?
>>How does one express any literal without at least one possible

> Okay, sure, yes, that's a point. But that's more of a structural
> objection than a functional one. What breaks if a type doesn't
> have literals?

The basic ability to specify a value.

  What about the model requires literals?

A model for expressing values has to have a way to express them. I don't think I understand your question.

> In the case of equality, I can point to what exactly breaks if
> a type doesn't support it: join. Specifically equijoin requires
> some kind of "equi-".
> What breaks if a type doesn't have literals?


> I'm not particularly attached to this construct, but if it is
> flawed I'd like to be able to put my finger right on it.
Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 17:38:44 CET

Original text of this message