Re: RM and abstract syntax trees
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:10:23 GMT
Message-ID: <PVtWi.168369$th2.120446_at_pd7urf3no>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:10:23 GMT
Message-ID: <PVtWi.168369$th2.120446_at_pd7urf3no>
Marshall wrote:
By "union types", I presume you mean "unions of types that a db may use"
and also that the RM doesn't preclude *nor define* unions of types
except for unions of relation types as long as what some people call an
...
> Your conception of the RM is too narrow. There is nothing in
> the RM that precludes nested structures, nor union types.