Re: ID field as logical address

From: Walter Mitty <>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 21:42:18 GMT
Message-ID: <_QCUl.1970$>

"paul c" <> wrote in message news:ImwUl.30133$PH1.14509_at_edtnps82...
> Walter Mitty wrote:

>> "Brian Selzer" <> wrote in message

> ...
>>> {{L:Smith,  F:Mary, Stat:Single},
>>> {L:Jones, F:Mary, Stat:Married}}
>>> and is then assigned the value,
>>> {{L:Smith, F:Mary, Stat:Divorced},
>>> {L:Jones, F:Mary, Stat:Married}}
>>> ...

> ...
>>> Note that the introduction of an autogenerated ID eliminates all 
>>> confusion:
>>> ...

> "autogenerated ID eliminates all confusion", what a laugh, almost sounds
> like a sleeping pill slogan.

> Walter, I suggest the only important claim here is that somehow relational
> theory doesn't offer a way to constrain such values. Certainly, since we
> are presented with the two different relation values, such a constraint
> could be written algebraically and I presume also in FOL, without resort
> to generated id's. Nothing wrong with generated ID's per se, but they
> aren't essential in this context. BTW, one of the many other confusions I
> snipped is that assignment is part of relational theory, whereas it's not,
> it is a concept certain kinds of languages need. But the basic confusion
> remains - the wilfull imputing of unspoken requirements, almost as if the
> existence of some app with some arbitrary requirement requires that all
> apps support that requirement..

I am confused. Your comment is directed at me but you quote Brian. What's going on? Received on Sun May 31 2009 - 23:42:18 CEST

Original text of this message