Re: ID field as logical address

Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>

>> Bob Badour wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> If it is unnamed, how would you refer to it? Names are important things.
>>
>> That was sort of the point, I wouldn't need to refer to a set-valued 
>> attribute.

I should remember to hesitate about talking about stuff that isn't fully formed, when I criticize others for similar, and which is so easily questioned and so easily can be stillborn, but since I brought it up, I guess I'm obligated to show some token perserverence. in this case the point would be that the set of tuples in the 'unnamed' attribute would indeed have names, except, I suppose, if they in turn were 'tuple' set-valued. This would all need a recursive relation definition, I remember reading a comment of Date's where he specifically restricted his view of things to exclude such definitions. Received on Sat May 30 2009 - 03:34:13 CEST