Re: A philosophical newbie issue: catch redundant errors via relationships or programmically?

On Dec 31 2007, 8:47 pm, mAsterdam <mAster..._at_vrijdag.org> wrote:
>
> Just curious - why call it architecture?

Why call a rose by another other name? Actually you should call Go "chess". Then say: I'm going to go chess playing!

> I don't really share your problem though (you got that by now , I'm
> sure) - it sounds like a 'forms' problem in your CASE tool,
> in casu access.
>

You're too blase--you must work in the field, LOL.

> It is 2:45 here, just got back
> from a very nice party.

Did you get lucky? Kiss close? Phone number? Flirty look? That's the order of success (in decreasing order of preference). I prefer to fly to foreign countries, it's cheap nowadays--for me and my age US girls are too upscale and expensive--I can get a girl half my age for a song in a foreign country--but hat's off to you if you can manage in America.

>
> > I finally figured it out, and it took me a while:  Access does indeed
> > allow compound primary keys, relationships between compound keys, and
> > the like between tables. No problem whatsoever (I generated from
> > scratch just such a form, so I know it can be done).  
>
> Access++

Is that a new OOP version of Access coming out? Seems like MSFT changes their paradigm every few years--good for Microsoft Press and all those "How To" books!

> Ray, do you mind if I am not interested? Please say no.
>
> [snip]

No.

>
> > Happy New Year!  I'm going to bed...
>
> Thank you, same 2u :-)
>
> BTW do you mind if I prefer go to chess?
>

Aha! It's you! You! Now I remember. Go is a lame sport, feeble minded 'tard. You might as well play tiddlywinks or bridge. Why not just check into a Pachenko parlour and watch the little metal balls drop? About as challenging. But chess, ah chess, that's another story...

> --
> What you see depends on where you stand.

And what did Newton say to Hooke? "I see further because I stand on the shoulder of giants"--like I do asking this newsgroup, LOL. (It's been said this was a subtle slight on Hooke, who was a midget, and had a feud with Newton).

RL Received on Tue Jan 01 2008 - 22:52:23 CET