Death to recursion! Re: Child vs parent records

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 12/11/05 3:30 PM, "Ed Kleban" <Ed at Kleban.com> wrote:

> This example ONLY works because in your own mind you assumed that "HaveBorn"
> (which I would have named "isParentOf") means that when you define the link
> you will always specify the parents on the left side of the link and the
> children on the right side of the link.  And because you do this it just so
> happens that kFromParentToChild and kFromChildToParent work as you intended.
> 
> But what if in my mind I choose to implement the "isChildOf" relation
> instead?  That would put the children on the left and the parents on the
> right.  In that case kFromParentToChild would not return me what I want or
> expect.

I believe (hope) that our docs say:

    Left table == Parent Table

    Right table == Child table

 
> Nowhere is this dependency made clear in the documentation.

Then ops.

> Nor should it have to be.  If we simply use "Left" and "Right" instead of
> "Parent" and "Child" then there is never any ambiguity because we use the same
> terms for access as we used for definition.  And there is no "recursion" mess
> to have to worry about or explain.

You mean to rename constants ???

Still not sure.

IF you will draw records as graph you will get hierachy.
So term FromParentToChilds means how you want move in hierarchy of objects.

We could use also:  kToDown, kToUp  may be


-- 
Best regards,

Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc

Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

[I feel the need: the need for speed]