Re: Operationalize orthogonality

x wrote:
> "Tony D" <tonyisyourpal_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1149504303.205324.83320_at_j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > x wrote:
> >
> > > How complicated! It would not be easyer to follow Mr. Codd advice ?
> > > Domains, not types.
>
> > And the difference between a domain and a type is what ? Precisely ?
> The "standard" answer would be "educate yourself". :-)

Alternatively, you could attempt a non-standard answer ?

> I don't know how "precisely" you want me to be.

As precise as you need to be to point out what you believe the difference between a domain and a type is.

> I would say that my current understanding of this (because I have not yet
> read Codd's 1990 book - which I strongly recommend because I browsed it) is
> that domains do not include any kind of operator.

So, if domains include no operators, what can you do with them ?

> What is your opinion ?

In this context, I equate the terms domain and type - as mentioned in the presentation pointed to elsewhere on this thread. (I don't, however, equate classes with domains or types - principally because (a) I'm not 100% clear on what a class is exactly, and (b) from what I do understand about classes & objects, there is a dynamic element to them that I wouldn't expect to find in a domain or type. I am open to persuasion on these points.) Received on Mon Jun 05 2006 - 14:01:06 CEST