Re: boolean datatype ... wtf?

On Sep 28, 2:53 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Looking for qbql, I happened on a nice post (Sept 16) by Vadim at:
>
> http://vadimtropashko.wordpress.com/
>
> I know as little about the machinations in 'ask tom' as I do about what
> goes on in the heads of the self-styled 'stackoverflow' posters
> mentioned here lately but talk about chasing one's tail (for nearly ten
> years at that)!  Running around in circles because it would seem that
> the 'type' was there all along had it occurred to the SQL authors that a
> heading can be empty and therefore a tuple can be the empty set and vice
> versa.  Instead, people are arguing about ways to re-invent a relation
> that's inherent and staring them in face.  I think Vadim was right on
> when he disparaged the recording of derived info (what he called
> 'calculated') instead of the determining info.  What a wasteful industry
> IT is.
>
> Maybe there's an excuse for the original post dating 'only' four years
> after TTM 1st edition was published.  I'll bet some of these posters are
> the same people who say there's been no progress in RT for twenty years,
> but I'd say that's only because they don't bother reading what the
> deeper thinkers write.

What is the problem with a Boolean data type? .
It is fundamental - so fundamental that in TTM it is the only required scalar data type: “We require that at least one built-in scalar type be supported : Namely, type “Boolean” (BOOLEAN in Tutorial D”).

Date and Darwen go on to give the obvious reasons for this.

The fact that DEE and DUM may be interpreted as TRUE and FALSE is not relevant. The result of A=B or A>B is not a relation. Received on Wed Sep 29 2010 - 13:51:51 CEST