Posted by --CELKO-- on 03/24/06 06:19

>> I am absolutely fascinated by the complete lack of ability of the theory-side respondents to differentiate between a thing in SQL Server that accidentally has the object name "view", and the theoretical construct defined by the term <VIEW>. <<

And I am absolutely fascinated by people who how no idea about
foundations and basic terms. "Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a
barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws
of nature." - Caesar and Cleopatra; George Bernard Shaw 1898.

Ghod! Next thing you know, we ANSI/ISO Industry standard Mathematical
types will want 2+2 = 4 and that Humpty Dumpty cannot make up things on
the fly.

>> Amusingly, the accidental fact that there doesn't happen to be a contravening definition of a construct named <STORED PROCEDURE> causes them to accept without noticing any contradiction that it therefore makes sense for an object in SQL Server with object name "stored procedure" to return an ordered set. <<

Actually, the Standards have SQL/PSM for stored procedures and it does
not make "ordered sets" -- whatever the heck that might be.

[Back to original message]