Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Negative Numbers in "Identity" or" Autonumber" fields

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

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:28:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4kiMh.47786$DN.2818@pd7urf2no>


Marshall wrote:

> On Mar 21, 8:28 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 

>>Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 21, 4:00 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Mar 20, 10:31 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> 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
>>>>>>world.
>>
>>>>>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
>>representation?
> 
> 
> 
> 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? ...

Closure, possibly?

p Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 17:28:16 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US