Re: WWW/Internet 2009: 2nd CFP until 21 September

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:50:25 -0300
Message-ID: <4a82e4c7$0$23778$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>



paul c wrote:

> Mr. Scott wrote:
> ...
>

>> I'm confused.  What requirement are you referring to?  Are you 
>> referring to the requirement that nulls be eliminated or the fact that 
>> an order isn't an order without a delivery destination?  The 
>> referential cycle was a consequence of trying to eliminate nulls. ...

What cycle? And why would anyone care about a referential cycle? It's not like SQL hasn't had deferred checking for a decade or two.

> I meant the requirement that a delivery address can't be recorded
> without an order date.

Paul,

If you are going to engage these folks, please address the most glaring problems in their positions and ignore the inconsequential details. Received on Wed Aug 12 2009 - 10:50:25 CDT

Original text of this message