Re: no names allowed, we serve types only
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:09:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4b829e44$0$12465$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> 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.
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:09:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4b829e44$0$12465$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> 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.
With all due respect, when proposing an innovation the onus lies on you to establish a need and/or benefit. How does discarding names benefit predicate calculus? What flaw does it address? Received on Mon Feb 22 2010 - 16:09:53 CET