Jon Heggland wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>> (I was only trying to counter what I thought was an attempt to make
>> variables inherent in RT as opposed to the language people apply it with.)
>
> That may be an admirable goal---the idea of a functional
> programming-style database seems to surface from time to time, though I
> have yet to see anything concrete---but to talk vaguely about names for
> relations (or relation values), that may refer to different relations at
> different times, is (in my opinion) just trying to describe a variable
> without actually using the "v" word.
And to clarify what my /real/ point is: By embracing the variable/value
terminology, one can ditch a lot of useless concepts, e.g. relation
schema, relation instance, domain ... The whole field becomes far more tidy.
--
Jon
Received on Thu May 03 2007 - 08:28:47 CDT
