But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly
refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well. However, I
do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated...
On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 10:00, Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> Ross and Iavor:
>
> > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual
> > > > schema
> > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing.
> >
> > > Not renamed yet.
> >
> > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How
> > does
> > "diagrams" strike you all?
>
> Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of
> correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be
> correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built
> there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab
> (they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to
> build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity).
> Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'.
>
> Iavor
--
Brett Schwarz
brett_schwarz AT yahoo.com
