Also, do you think you could clean up the document you've been
e-mailing and attach it to the issue as a text file? I think it would
be a useful design reference for future viewers of the code.
Just to clarify, by self-joins, I meant relationships that point back
at the same type of entity.
Thanks again. Your work is very much appreciated.
Patrick Earl
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Harald.
>
> Thanks for your continued work on this.
>
> I'm wondering... does your solution support self-joins? Do you have
> tests for that? If not, it would be fantastic if you could add that.
> If you have enough time to help with this early this week, we can get
> it into the next 3.2 release.
>
> At this point, I'm looking over your code, trying to understand what's going
> on.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Patrick Earl
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Harald Mueller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Hi Patrick, all,
>>
>> In my long text from yesterday, there are (at least) two errors:
>>
>> ----
>> In section 2., about 3 lines below (||-1), there is a "not" missing:
>>
>> Other member expressions (with simple types or component types) are NOT of
>> relevance to this discussion, except where explicitly noted.
>>
>> ----
>> In section 8., the third of the "Four examples" is simply wrong! The correct
>> argument is:
>>
>> * When we encounter a.B.C.Q == null (which would become a_B_C.Q IS NULL on
>> the database), we do not know anything: This condition becoming true could
>> be the result of a missing a.B, or a missing a.B.C, or actually that a.B.C.Q
>> is null. So we cannot add anything to the "definitely != null" member
>> expression set.
>>
>> Sorry for the glitches.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Harald
>>
>> --
>> NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
>> Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
>>
>
