Re: header part of the value?
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:47:37 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 29, 6:49 am, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 1:23 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Certainly in practice this is the sort of thing that would
> > > > > be almost universally a good idea. But what theoretical
> > > > > basis does it have?
> > > > Static typing goes out the window.
> > > Yes, certainly; that bears mentioning. That doesn't change the
> > > algebra at all, though, does it?
> > The standard relational algebra is essentially statically typed and
> > it's formal definition is based on that. If you drop that, you will
> > have to give new definitions that take into account that the headers
> > might not be what you expect. I would not call that "doesn't change at
> > all".
> I suppose that's true.
Hmm, I don't think I said this strongly enough. What I meant to say was, "Aha, it appears that you are right and I was wrong."
Marshall Received on Fri Feb 29 2008 - 16:47:37 CET