Re: boolean datatype ... wtf?

On 29/09/2010 7:03 AM, Bob Badour wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2010 4:51 AM, Paul Mansour wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Aren't A=B and A>B relations?
>
> They are neither more nor less relations than X*X + Y*Y + Z*Z = R*R is a
> relation.
> ...

I guess it would have been more precise to ask "aren't the equals and greater than operators expressible as relations?"

Not to say they should be recorded as relations but I don't see the need to record a value 'Y' of type 'character' or suchlike as was suggested in the asktom column when it seems that projection is conceptually all that is needed to determine truth or falseness. Not suggesting either that that was Vadim T's main point. Received on Wed Sep 29 2010 - 16:26:56 CEST