Andy Lacey
andy at minstersystems.co.uk
Tue Mar 30 13:18:17 CST 2004
1) cads 2) opposite of unbounders -- Andy Lacey http://www.minstersystems.co.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of John Bartow > Sent: 30 March 2004 20:06 > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > Well, in that case I think I misunderstood "bounders" also - > what are bounders? > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of > Heenan, Lambert > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:37 PM > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > A cad is someone you would not wish your daughter to marry, > particularly if you are from the pink gin swilling, monocle > wearing 1920's era upper class society, much written about by > the like of P.G. Woodhouse and Dorothy L Sayer. > > cad (kàd) noun > An unprincipled, ungentlemanly man. > > Lambert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Bartow [SMTP:john at winhaven.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:10 PM > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > Ok, I was just going to avoid sounding stupid here but what the > > heck... > > > > What are Cads? > > > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Charlotte > > Foust > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:49 AM > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > > > ROTFL > > > > Could we get pennants made up for each side? > > > > Charlotte Foust > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MartyConnelly [mailto:martyconnelly at shaw.ca] > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:45 PM > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > > > I was hoping for "Bounders" and "Cads" > > > > John Bartow wrote: > > > > >I guess maybe "nay-sayers" had a negative connotation to it. > > > > > >Next time I think I'll call the opposing views "Shirts" > and "Skins". > > >Maybe we'll get more people participating :o) > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > > >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of > > >DWUTKA at marlow.com > > >Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:51 PM > > >To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com > > >Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > > > > > >Thank you. I've had my opinion changed on this list > before too. And > > >I > > > > >always learn something new in here. But I was wondering if I was > > >starting to lose it, because I hadn't seen any solid > 'evidence' from > > >the nay-sayers. That's all I was asking for. Reproducable > results. > > >It > > > > >was very easy for me to reproduce the Date Table > 'examples', and see > > >that they are definitely more efficient then using > calculations in a > > >query, for sorting and searching. > > > > > >Just haven't seen anything like that with the Lookup topic. Which > > >isn't surprising though. It is something that has been > mystified in > > >the 'relational database' world. It's in books, on the > web, and thus > > >is defended simply by pointing to other references. Those are the > > >hardest walls to topple. It's a paradigm. > > > > > >Drew > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > > >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of > John Bartow > > >Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:16 PM > > >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > > >Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > > > > > >I started the thread decidely not using lookup properties for the > > >past 5 years because of the overwhelming attitude among developers > > >that it shouldn't be used. (IIRC that's when I first read Dev's "10 > > >Commandments".) > > > > > >I had no "side" in this debate other than pointing out > weaknesses I > > >saw > > > > >in specific arguments (and being "cutesy" at times) Rarely > is someone > > >go to fully switch "sides" in a debate. (So I don't expect > everyone > > >to agree with > > >me.) I believe that, based on this thread, the people who > argued that > > it is > > >OK to use lookup properties have won the day. > > > > > >Unless someone comes up with a solid reason why it should never be > > >used > > > > >I will not hesitate to use it again when the situation warrants. > > > > > >I challenge anyone to use facts to convince me otherwise. > In fact I > > >would very much appreciate it. And I'll buy you a few if > you can do > > >so! > > > > > >John "always open to the facts" Bartow > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > > >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of > Charlotte > > >Foust > > >Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:44 PM > > >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > > >Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > > > > > >Forget it. You insist that your opinion carried the day. > Go right > > >ahead and believe it, but don't expect everyone else to agree. > > > > > >Charlotte Foust > > > > > > > > >-- > > >_______________________________________________ > > >AccessD mailing list > > >AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > >http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > >Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > >-- > > >_______________________________________________ > > >AccessD mailing list > > >AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > >http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > >Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Marty Connelly > > Victoria, B.C. > > Canada > > > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > AccessD mailing list > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > AccessD mailing list > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > AccessD mailing list > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > -- > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/a> ccessd > Website: > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/a> ccessd > Website: > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > >