|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> (Anybody have any clue how the
> relational calculus is different from the relational algebra??)
Yes.
> SQL is
> basically the relational algebra with COBOL-style syntax.
Actually, it's relational calculus with COBOL-style syntax. ;-)
> All of this makes me wonder... What would happen if somebody designed a
> language which was exactly like Haskell, but had syntax like Pascal or
> something? What if it didn't use terms like "monad" and "functor" and
> "existential quantification", but used something more concrete-sounding?
Go for it. Then write a parser to translate it into Haskell.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |