Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:09:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4b829e44$0$12465$>

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> On Feb 21, 8:10 pm, paul c <> 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

Original text of this message