Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

> In your original post (with classes only, no subclasses)

The statements...
person isa thing.
john isa person.

...create a class hierarchy that can be viewed as: thing
  person
    john

> storing that each class is a thing would be redundant.

Yes, that would be redundant, and I didn't, nor am I asking you to, but that fact should be derivable. Upto RM Sol#2, a db client cannot derive that fact as one can with XDb1's db, because the provided solutions don't store the class of some things.

> But since your original message had no hint towards subclasses,
> that's a moot point anyway.

"any hierarchy" includes the class hierarchy.  

> irrelevant, since your original post had no mention of a class hierarchy.

"any hierarchy" includes the class hierarchy. Received on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 23:16:38 CEST