Re: Object-relational impedence
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ab52954e-e30d-4550-9c07-5b3d31dd45ca_at_d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ab52954e-e30d-4550-9c07-5b3d31dd45ca_at_d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 15, 4:49 pm, rp..._at_pcwin518.campus.tue.nl (rpost) wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> >The "vague collections" idea is not a good one IMHO.
> >Because you can get more or less everything you want
> >with relations. (Surprise! I like relations! :-)
>
> But you often get more (e.g. you don't always need the
> uniqueness of elements).
There is really only one collection type where that is strictly true: bags. Bags seem to me to be the singularly least useful data structure I have encountered. Even so, they are acceptably encoded as relations over <element, count.>
Marshall Received on Sun Mar 16 2008 - 03:32:37 CET