Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

On Feb 18, 8:08 am, Keith H Duggar <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:21 pm, Tegiri Nenashi <tegirinena..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 3:46 pm, Tegiri Nenashi <tegirinena..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The thread started as Keith's attempt to demote attribute names in
> > > favor of types,
>
> Eliminate not just demote.
>
> > > and was vehemently objected to. From my angle (that
> > > would be relational lattice:-) Relational Model is a theory of
> > > Relations with Named Attributes. It is difficult to see unnamed
> > > perspective (with positional attributes) as contender anymore. This is
> > > especially evident through the prism of set intersection join (aka
> > > composition) operation...
>
> Except that I'm not proposing "positional attributes" so I fail
> to see the relevance of your point? First, I'm asking a simple
> question: suppose we have already have unique types for every
> header then what theoretical capability do the names add? (Bob
> argues that they are necessary for "controlling" natural join.
> I disagree that they are /necessary/ for this; but my complete
> response to that will have to wait a few days.)

Your idea doesn't eliminate attribute names, it just delegates it to the type namespace. I think your copy method should rather be called aliasing. The whole model still works as we are familiar with it, except you can't have Point = {int X, int Y} and PointF = {float X, float Y}. You would either have to make the types the same or choose different names for the conflicting attributes. Received on Thu Feb 18 2010 - 07:31:15 CET