Re: General semantics
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:42:13 -0300
Message-ID: <4bf6c52c$0$11844$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> 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.
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:42:13 -0300
Message-ID: <4bf6c52c$0$11844$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Nilone wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, Nilone, it's still sounds like a lousy idea to me. Received on Fri May 21 2010 - 19:42:13 CEST