Hi Rod, > There are many advantages to a row/col based design. I don't mean to > preclude it but I want to also do nested blocks or complex objects or even > simple name:value pairs.
Now i realize that my Rebol databases are made of nested blocks of variable length. It is not clear to me how to convert them in a row/column scheme. Any ideas? > Modular is good and having different functions that match the task in > complexity also sounds good. This is why I want to start at the bottom - > the interaction with a binary file. Then, on top of that we could build > functions to manage rows and columns, or objects, or name:value pairs > and so on. Now i understand your point of view. Are you sure it can be done without any data structure representation? > You would be right at home with the Pick/UniVerse database system > then. It is multi-dimensional in nature. I am however just an relational > db guy who wants more options than the traditional ones provide. I also > want it all to be simpler as well. (Can you say dreamer? :-)) Dreams are free. :-) --- Ciao Romano -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
