Re: does a table always need a PK?

"Tony Douglas" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message news:bcb8c360.0308260426.6dadbeee_at_posting.google.com...
> Hi all,
>
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:<OYy2b.694$FE.81687684_at_mantis.golden.net>...
> > I have long argued that adequate support for user defined types and for
> > adequate physical independence would give me all the tools I really need
to
> > devise my own ad hoc solutions. My own ad hoc solutions would be
guaranteed
> > consistent because I would have to construct them on a theory based
> > structural framework consisting of relations and a formal, extensible
type
> > system.
> >
>
> I think this is absolutely right. I'm still in a way stunned that most
> current SQL databases are lumbered with what amounts to the type
> system of FORTRAN. Why have nulls if you can have something even at
> the horrid level of the Pascal variant record for dealing with "out of
> band" indicators ? You even get to stick with the boolean logic we all
> know and love !
>
> That said, I'm still not 100% convinced about the type inheritance /
> possreps suggestion of Tutorial D. It's thoroughly defined, and very
> elegant (for what it's trying to achieve); I'm just not sure I'm
> asking the question it's answering. I think achieving a type system of
> at least the level of the Milner type system in Standard ML would be a
> perfectly good start, and a massive advance on where we are today.

From my brief perusal online, I see no particular advantages to the Standard ML type system. In what sense do you see it as a higher level type system than the proposal in TTM? Perhaps, you can point me to the specific differences you find important. Received on Tue Aug 26 2003 - 17:14:41 CEST