Re: atomic

From: Jon Heggland <>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:13:25 +0100
Message-ID: <fgrs38$mip$>

Quoth Roy Hann:
> I have been on the fence about RVAs for years. I can see why Date and
> others (including you guys) want to talk about them for the purpose of
> understanding where the theory takes you. But this little exchange shows me
> that I never want to see RVAs implemented in any product. (I am not talking
> about paul's confusion about the relations in question.)
> I don't care if there is a problem that can be solved only with RVAs, the
> misery they would invite just wouldn't be worth it.

What misery, exactly? It's easy to design relvars with confusing predicates using them, but that goes for boolean-valued attributes as well. :)

If people just stopped thinking of RVAs as special in any way, and just thought of relations as perfectly normal values, a lot of confusion would go away.

Received on Wed Nov 07 2007 - 09:13:25 CET

Original text of this message