Re: MV Keys
- From: "Brian Selzer" <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:35:49 GMT
"Jon Heggland" <heggland@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7e1f4d25e871bb98979e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <1142006381.942511.18190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
marshall.spight@xxxxxxxxx says...
And just for fun, here's an alternative semantics for the syntax
above, in which the parentheses *do* mean the same thing.
(1,b)
Above, "(" means "introduce a new set, cardinality 1, with
the following attributes."
A set has attributes? No, a set with card 1 has one element. What is
that element? Not "an attributes". :)
A set has at least one attribute, though it can have more. I may be
conflating terminology, but isn't the cardinality of a set an attribute? A
uniform set is a set of something, so wouldn't the type (or domain) of its
elements be an attribute?
{ (1,b), (2,a) }
Here, "{" means "introduce a new set of arbitrary cardinality".
"(1,b)" means the same as it did before, and the comma
after it means "union".
But then you will have a set of set(s), won't you?
Ha!
We are bickering over details again. I believe we now agree sufficiently
on the important stuff.
Sure. I guess what one does in practise, is to use conventional syntax,
and just define the result using such relational terms. I.e. more an
intellectual game than an actual language design / operator
implementation strategy.
That's a bit dismissive, don't you think?
Perhaps. I just don't see this paradigm as very practical, cf. my
examples of how verbose the concrete syntax for it might be (not to
mention strange and unintuitive for the relation-unaware masses). But it
might be like lambda calculus: I wouldn't want to do any actual
programming in it, but it might be useful for theoretical research, or
as a scientific foundation for a system, cf. Date&Darwen's minimal
algebra.
There are some who say UPDATE *is* assignment. :) But are you saying
that you don't have scalar variables, only relvars? Or that you use
UPDATE to change a scalar variable?
Update and assignment are both imperative operators, but they are
not the same thing.
They say update is a special kind/case of assignment, to be more
precise.
--
Jon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MV Keys
- From: JOG
- Re: MV Keys
- References:
- Re: MV Keys
- From: dawn
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Marshall Spight
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: David Cressey
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: David Cressey
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Marshall Spight
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Marshall Spight
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Marshall Spight
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Marshall Spight
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Marshall Spight
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Marshall Spight
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Marshall Spight
- Re: MV Keys
- From: Jon Heggland
- Re: MV Keys
- Prev by Date: Re: MV Keys
- Next by Date: Syntacs, Semantics, and the Problem Domain
- Previous by thread: Re: MV Keys
- Next by thread: Re: MV Keys
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|