On 11 November 2011 19:07, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2011 15:25:29 Jesse Phillips wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:17:40 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > Actually, I'd argue that Row would be better than Record, since it _is_ > > > a row in a table. Personally, I'd find it to be more immediately clear > > > that way. With Record, I have to figure out what the heck it is a > record > > > of, whereas Row is immediately obvious in this context. > > > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > > > It _is_ a record of data, just as much as it is a row in a table. The RFC > > I reference continuously refers to records and never even says "row." > > Well, then you have a good argument for keeping it as Record. But > spreadsheets > are tables of rows and columns, and a CSV file is a spreadsheet. > Personally, I > find the term record overly vague and wouldn't use it for much of anything > - > not to mention that it makes me think of the analog music device rather > than > anything else. So, I don't particularly like the name Record. I wouldn't > use > it in reference to a DB either. I'd use the term row there as well. But > others > may not agree with me, and if the RFC uses the term record, then that's a > definite argument for using Record instead of Row. +1 for row... although I appreciate the RFC says record all over the place. That said though, upon reading it, I think that might be the worst RFC ever written ;)
