Re: General semantics

From: Nilone <reaanb_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51f8bece-644d-4ec3-a89d-60f618d8c348_at_t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com>



On May 21, 4:20 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Nilone wrote:
> > On May 20, 10:51 pm, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback.  Let's see if I can explain and defend that
> > argument.
>
> >>You seem to axiomatically assume that OIDs are a necessity, and that
> >>they _must_ exist.
>
> > Not at all.  However, OOP languages are built on OIDs / references /
> > pointers.  Any relational description of OOP must include them.
>
> Hell no!

Sorry, Bob, I think that came out the wrong way. I meant a direct description of OOP in a RM would require a domain called OID over which we can define relations. In current SQL systems, I could use an integer of the same width as the address bus. I certainly don't want to change the RM in any way. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 12:27:26 CDT

Original text of this message