Re: Advice on SQL and records
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:28:13 GMT
Message-ID: <NB_Oe.1159$9i4.735_at_newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_ucantrade.com.NOTHERE> wrote in message
news:7ekmg19v5jo9k6k4ghmbc1u0bbgagnc8se_at_4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:21:44 GMT, "David Cressey"
> <david.cressey_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"Paul" <paul_at_test.com> wrote in message
> >news:4309d82b$0$97095$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I might start calling SQL rows "records" all the time now, just to
annoy
> >> the language purists! :)
> >
> >Hee, hee. I love it, regardless of whether I agree or not. The
language
> >police should always be given a hard time, else we will all end up with
> >newspeak.
>
> I prefer to have clear meanings. There have been too many
> arguments here that have been due to differences or misuses in
> terminology. When you insist that any word is as appropriate as any
> other, you lose meanings. Newspeak lost a lot of meanings, too.
Well, ok, I'll back off a little. But "language police" invariably obstruct clarity of thought rather than facilitating it. That's why I made the reference to 1984.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
Received on Wed Aug 24 2005 - 15:28:13 CEST