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 23:05:18 GMT
Message-ID: <OSiMh.48162$zU1.22575@pd7urf1no>


paul c wrote:

> 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

That is, unless one considers it acceptable for a system to answer "sorry, I know the answer but if I told you, I would have to kill you".

p Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 18:05:18 CDT

Original text of this message

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