On Jan 2, 2008 10:31 PM, Jack Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i'm after a verb that might best extend sql. i thought this might be > a good exercise for me to learn a bit more j and possibly to appear > intelligent in my sql community.
I doubt this would be a good approach -- the sql community has been heavily soaked the mystery of "tables are not ordered, result sets are ordered, result sets are not tables" which severely crimps such discussions (or, alternatively, can make you look unintelligent if you say otherwise sensible things about searching and sorting without invoking the proper circumlocations). Mind you, there is some validity behind this issue, which has to do with drawing clear distinctions between different instances of persitent data. But there's also some severe craziness which comes along with sql's history. In contrast, J's semantics were all designed for working with ordered data. > is there anything as useful as a "join" or a "group by" to be borrowed from j? You mean like J's /. adverb? -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
