Re: Natural keys vs Aritficial Keys

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 03:18:42 GMT
Message-ID: <muITl.29743$PH1.4466_at_edtnps82>

David BL wrote:

> On May 29, 1:27 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>...

>> If he (or anybody else) is
>> proposing that a tuple programming and user interface is superior to a
>> relation interface then they will have to go quite a few steps beyond
>> addressing, they will have to suggest some tuple operators and why they
>> would be better, more useful, et cetera. Would such operators replace
>> relational ones or just augment them? If the latter, why would you need
>> both?
>
> Who is proposing any of that? Am I "he" in the above?

Your words:

"As I said, there is nothing implicitly wrong with a tuple-variable ..."

and

"I find the concept of a "sub-variable" of a given variable interesting. For example, given a tuple-variable, there are subvariables  for each of the attributes. However with other ways of composing data structures, sub-variables may not exist. A relvar is one such example. ..."

That is pretty mysterious stuff, tuple-variables have sub-variables, relvars may or not have sub-variables, relvars are structures (not logical pointers presumably?) maybe that comes from thinking about C++ too much. (Nothing wrong with C++ in the riight context, but this isn't one.) Received on Fri May 29 2009 - 05:18:42 CEST