Re: Object-relational impedence

"paul c" <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah> wrote in message news:oufBj.69267$pM4.44570_at_pd7urf1no...
> David Cressey wrote:
> ...
> >
> > I thought that the SET clause of the UPDATE statement was an assignment
in
> > disguise.
> > ...
>
> I would have thought UPDATE itself is assignment in disguise and SET is
> just an arbitrary language device, just as scope operators don't seem to
> have much to do with database theory, ;). (I admit I have no idea
> whether UPDATE without SET is allowed.)

Yes, that's probably more precise than what I said.

> Regarding SICP, I think somewhere it states that FP languages don't have
> assignment, which I didn't see here, at least in the few OO cross-posts
> that I accidentally read.
>
>
> As usual when replying to David C, no offence but can't resist
> mentioning that Date has claimed that the ACID property that SQL
> vendors tout is basically incomplete (my words, not his), I think he
> might have been including SQL's UPDATE when he said that.

It's my understanding, just from folowing c.d.t. discussions, that Date & Darwen, in the D language, aim for something more ambitious than ACID, namely a language that permits all transactions to be expressed as a single action. If you do that, then you get all the benefits of ACID and maybe a few others. Received on Tue Mar 11 2008 - 00:35:06 CET