Hacker News Reader

With one single exception : you cannot use a CHECK clause to check that a table must be nonempty, because the semantics of the CHECK clause are that it must be satisfied by all rows in the table, and therefore the empty table trivially satisfies any CHECK clause.

View on HN

Huh! That makes sense, thanks! It's standard univ. quantifier behaviour, I hadn't made the link.

Also that's bloody odd because date or darwen (or both) explicitly called out this behaviour as flawed in SQL when in fact it's obviously logically consistent, and they know logic and SQL, so... why are they critising it? How very strange.

Again, thanks for pointing this out. How did I never realise this?

What they "called out as flawed" was the impossibility to declare any such rule with SQL as it stood. What they were "criticizing" was precisely the fact that a data language that was supposed to be "expressively complete" was *unable* to express such a rule. You can't claim "expressive completeness" for a language if there is demonstrably a case where said language's expressiveness fails to meet the mark. It's not the "behaviour of the language" they were criticizing in all/any of those use cases that were supported by the language as it stood. They were criticizing the fact that there was a use case [and a relatively reasonable one on the face of it] that the language couldn't support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com