Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

From: Keith H Duggar <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <ca425eb3-782c-4978-b254-bac2706c69a2_at_c28g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>



On Feb 21, 8:10 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> As for having just types, I still think that Codd introduced his
> attribute names because of relations that can have two 'columns' of the
> same type. I think Keith D is arguing against this and if I'm right
> about that, I'd like him to deal with that case, not to say it can't be
> done, just that I'd like to see whether his "copy" in a language is a
> better tool.

How about we do some concrete exercises then? Please provide your favorite example of some relations with attributes having the same type along with some associated code operating on those relations. Then I will convert the {(name,type)} system example into a {type} only system so we can compare.

KHD Received on Sun Feb 21 2010 - 21:41:26 CST

Original text of this message