Re: atomic
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:34:13 GMT
Message-ID: <F1kYi.187500$1y4.140129_at_pd7urf2no>
>
> What do you mean? That an RVA might have an attribute with the same name
> as an attribute in the enclosing relation? If you think of these as "in
> the same outer relation", it is your thinking that is faulty, I'd say. I
> don't see the difference between this and an attribute having a possrep
> with a component name that is the same as a different attribute. But
> perhaps I'm misinterpreting you.
> ...
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:34:13 GMT
Message-ID: <F1kYi.187500$1y4.140129_at_pd7urf2no>
Jon Heggland wrote:
> Quoth paul c:
>> One thing that annoys me about them is how they allow two attributes >> with the same name to be thought of as "in the same outer relation", if >> you will.
>
> What do you mean? That an RVA might have an attribute with the same name
> as an attribute in the enclosing relation? If you think of these as "in
> the same outer relation", it is your thinking that is faulty, I'd say. I
> don't see the difference between this and an attribute having a possrep
> with a component name that is the same as a different attribute. But
> perhaps I'm misinterpreting you.
> ...
I think you read me right, for me faulty thinking is easy when two different things have the same name. Received on Wed Nov 07 2007 - 15:34:13 CET