Re: ID field as logical address

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:28:40 -0300
Message-ID: <4a203768$0$23765$>

paul c wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
> ...

>> Tuples as data types and data values are perfectly fine. What's wrong 
>> with them?
>> ...

> I don't know that doing so is some kind of theoretical error. Since
> they are used to define relations, then presumably a single tuple could
> be an attribute value. However, when we already have relations and a
> set of relation operators, doing so seems superfluous.

The only necessary data type is boolean. All other data types are superfluous. That doesn't reduce the utility of other data types.

> (I have often mused to myself about sets of tuples, constituting a
> bastard attribute that is unnamed, which may have uses, but it wouldn't
> be allowed in Codd's model.)

If it is unnamed, how would you refer to it? Names are important things. Received on Fri May 29 2009 - 21:28:40 CEST

Original text of this message