Re: No exceptions?

Bob Badour wrote:
paul c wrote:

J M Davitt wrote:
....

It almost seems as though you want to declare an analogue for DUM,
syntax-check some expressions, and add attributes to your relation
with the confidence that your expressions are still correct.


Not exactly how I thought of it, but I think that's fair, after all, one can add attributes, subject to one's external conception, to relation definitions that don't have empty headings, in fact not that the observation is of any use, that seems to be what happens when one defines a relation with one attribute.

I suggest an empty candidate key in a relation with any number of attributes is closer.

I don't catch your drift. If we are on the same page, then trying to equate a relation that has either no rows or one row with a relation whose name is mis-spelled is indeterminate. If doing that is the same then I would have to give up on my original question.

p
.