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

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:18:25 -0300
Message-ID: <4a838606$0$23746$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>



paul c wrote:
> Mr. Scott wrote:
> 

>> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news: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 think it's misleading to say that Sql has deferred checking. Both
>> deferred constraints and subquery in check are optional features of
>> the Sql standard. Neither Sql Server or DB2 support either. Oracle
>> does support deferred constraint checking but not subqueries in check.
>> ...

>
> I gather you are no longer talking about sql, but about products.

And as I made clear earlier, the specific limitations of whatever shitty implementation of SQL he's using are irrelevant in a theory newsgroup. For fuck sake, both multi-table constraints and deferred checking have been standard for at least 17 fucking years. ::rolls eyes:: Received on Wed Aug 12 2009 - 22:18:25 CDT

Original text of this message