To be exact, this would be an attribute, not an AR :-)
2010/5/13 SwissChris
> So here we go again. The argument of "parity" brought up by Brian, which
> will lead to adding "this attribute to every relationship type" whether ever
> occurring or needed or not. So again I'd plead for the 5 cases r
So here we go again. The argument of "parity" brought up by Brian, which
will lead to adding "this attribute to every relationship type" whether ever
occurring or needed or not. So again I'd plead for the 5 cases rule (which
we have for the instrument tree): If you can provide five (or even three)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1, though I'm a bit confused - are you looking for +1's to the idea prior
> to RFC, or are you considering this to be the RFC itself?
>
I think of this as an experiment to see if it's possible for a tri
