Re: Possible bridges between OO programming proponents and relational model
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:17:23 GMT
Message-ID: <DEnkg.1047$Zk3.24378_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>> paul c wrote:
>>
>>> Cimode wrote:
>>>
>>>> paul c a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> The basic premise of this thread was to suggest that physical issues
>>>> may restrict faithfull representation of relvars and asking the
>>>> question on whether OO mechanisms could help ...
>>>
>>>
>>> If so, the thread should restrict itself to relvars and OO mechanisms
>>> (e.g., inheritance).
>>>
>>>> ... representation through N-ary physical scheme)...If I am not
>>>> mistaken a
>>>> non-sequiturs involve false premice. ...
>>>
>>> I'd say you are mistaken, so 'not mistaken' is a false premise.
>>
>> Non sequitur does not require a false premise. ...
>
> That's why he is mistaken.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:17:23 GMT
Message-ID: <DEnkg.1047$Zk3.24378_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote: >
>> paul c wrote:
>>
>>> Cimode wrote:
>>>
>>>> paul c a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> The basic premise of this thread was to suggest that physical issues
>>>> may restrict faithfull representation of relvars and asking the
>>>> question on whether OO mechanisms could help ...
>>>
>>>
>>> If so, the thread should restrict itself to relvars and OO mechanisms
>>> (e.g., inheritance).
>>>
>>>> ... representation through N-ary physical scheme)...If I am not
>>>> mistaken a
>>>> non-sequiturs involve false premice. ...
>>>
>>> I'd say you are mistaken, so 'not mistaken' is a false premise.
>>
>> Non sequitur does not require a false premise. ...
>
> That's why he is mistaken.
Sorry, I was just amplifying. I didn't mean to suggest any disagreement with what you wrote. Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 03:17:23 CEST