Re: MV Keys

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1141399209.093211.14150_at_z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Jon Heggland wrote:
> > And is the library/language distinction really that clear cut?
> > Is the String class in the language or in the library?
>
> Both. But the issue I'm trying to raise here is interface.
> And by those terms, we would say String is in the library.
>
>
> > In any case, that wasn't really what I meant to ask. It seems you say
> > that compound types breaks 1NF, but that it doesn't really matter much;
>
> Yes; but that's just my opinion.
>
>
> > and that the classification of types into compound and simple is
> > essentially arbitrary.
>
> Did I say that? I kind of believe that, but I kind of don't.
>
>
> > What, then, is the use of talking about 1NF and
> > simple vs compound types at all?
>
> I think the choice of collections has a big impact on the
> utility of a language.
>
>
> > This is the same argument Date uses to espouse the relation type (or
> > type generator) as the only compound attribute type (generator)---it
> > introduces minimal extra complexity, since relations and relational
> > operators have to exist anyway, and it can handle both lists and sets.
>
> The relational operators don't handle lists very well.
>
> myList.removeAt(3)
>
> vs.

> BEGIN
> delete from MyList where Index = 3;
> update MyList set Index = Index - 1 where Index > 3;
> COMMIT
delete from MyList where Index = 3 because Index is a derived attribute :-) Received on Mon Mar 06 2006 - 12:47:40 CET