Re: Relation name = address?

x wrote:
> "JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:1147973864.064854.315380_at_j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Is a relation's 'name' in fact a pointer? Relation names obviously
> > don't come under the remit of the information principle, yet they are
> > essential to database manipulation and querying. Are they hence an
> > acceptable/necessary exception?
>
> Following the remark that "the law is made from exceptions" and the critique
> of Date & Darwen, you should adopt the "no exceptions" policy.
>
> > In TTM's cogent discussion of OID's Date & Darwin talk about "a
> > database relvar might reasonably have an attribute whose values are
> > (say) ... 'database relvar names'". This strikes as possibly generating
> > a form of addressing/dereferencing procedure. Jim.
>
> Forget the relation "names". What about the attribute names ?

What about them in particular do you have an issue with x? Received on Mon May 22 2006 - 19:26:11 CEST