Re: SQL deferred constraints (a bit O/T, I know)

On 4 apr, 04:12, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 11:28 pm, Erwin <e.sm..._at_myonline.be> wrote:
>
> > TWO : the goal is NOT that "at the end of the session, all constraints
> > must be _TRUE_", the goal is that at the end of the session, all
> > constraints must be _SATISFIED_.
>
> Are you saying that because you don't regard a constraint as a boolean
> valued expression or function, or because you would never use
> terminology that ignores the distinction between an expression and
> what it evaluates to?

The latter. I was complaining about sloppiness in the language. Wouldn't you agree that "ignoring the distinction that you mention" is indeed sloppy language (or sloppy use thereof) ? Received on Mon Apr 04 2011 - 14:03:28 CEST