Re: About grammar and syntax on a possible relational language

On 11 mar, 16:42, TroyK <cs_tr..._at_juno.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 4:55 am, Cimode <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > (snip)
> > SUMMARY
>
> > By running the following at definition time
>
> > [MAKE EMPLOYEE = {EMP# INT, LNAME CHAR, DOB DATE, SALARY INT}]
> > [MAKE RICH_EMPLOYEE = EMPLOYEE WITH SALARY > 100000]
> > [MAKE VIP_MEMBER = {RICH_EMPLOYEE}]
>
> > I am defining 3 relations differently and applying operators while
> > establishing a de facto foreign key between VIP_MEMBER and
> > RICH_EMPLOYEE as well as RICH_EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYEE. I use this de
> > facto references to be able to write
>
> > PRESENT2D [VIP_MEMBER WITH SALARY > 200000] --> 2 implicit JOINS.
>
> > What do you guys think. I initially thought about using SET instead
> > but I want to keep the idea of relation as a construct which is why I
> > use the verb MAKE. I am hoping the above example wil draw some
> > constructive comments..
>
> > Regards...
>
> Short comment/question on the syntax:
>
> PRESENT2D - does the name imply that there will be other n-dimensional
> presentations available (PRESENT3D, e.g.)?
To be quite frank I did not think about multidimensional but my guess is that nothing should prevent the media layer to allow for instance the build of OLAP if that's what you have in mind. Received on Tue Mar 11 2008 - 19:31:10 CET