Re: The Name of the Rows

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:sNudnU0P0I5NrendRVn-uw_at_comcast.com...
> Periodically someone in this forum fulminates against the use of the terms
> "field" and "record" instead of "column" and "row". (are you listening,
> Joe?) I do agree that right terminology is helpful.
>
> But I've seen plenty of garbage documented in terms of rows, columns and
> tables. I've also seen plenty of well designed data described as fields
and
> records. If the substance is right, the terminology used is a minor
issue
> for me. If the substance is wrong, no amount of euphemism can make it
> right.
>
> It's like the people who say that Mark Twain is no longer "politically
> correct", because he used a "bad word" to describe Jim, in Huckleberry
> Finn. Give me a break!

Agreed that the translation is usually straightforward, but in a forum where theory and practice are debated side-by-side, it's useful to know what level of abstraction someone is arguing on.

And there are some genuine bits of confusion in specificity. Does "record" refer to a record type (heading), or a specific record (row/tuple)? It's similar to the confusion over the word "object".

Don't forget relation, tuple, attribute, and type (domain) as well. Received on Wed Apr 07 2004 - 22:18:43 CEST