Comment On The Tautology Type

Does this comment exist?

CREATE TABLE [CustomerComment] (

[CommentId] INT IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,

... snip ...

[IsComment] BIT NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT [CK_Comments_IsValid]
CHECK ( [IsValid] = 0 )

)

CREATE TABLE [BarberShop] (

... snip ...

[HairOnTheFloor] BIT NOT NULL

)

That's why the Paradox database went down -- it couldn't represent tautology.

Fortunately, John’s has solved this problem

So... did John do this or is there something missing like maybe one of the words "predecessor", "coworker", "team lead" or "boss"?

ObiWayneKenobi:

Fortunately, John’s has solved this problem

So... did John do this or is there something missing like maybe one of the words "predecessor", "coworker", "team lead" or "boss"?

Fortunately, John’s something has solved this problem by inventing a new SQL data type..


FTFY, at a high level.

The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club

ObiWayneKenobi:

Fortunately, John’s has solved this problem

So... did John do this or is there something missing like maybe one of the words "predecessor", "coworker", "team lead" or "boss"?

Yes.

What's a tautology?

ObiWayneKenobi:

Fortunately, John’s has solved this problem

So... did John do this or is there something missing like maybe one of the words "predecessor", "coworker", "team lead" or "boss"?

You've clearly never heard of the famous Saint John's.

Josephus:

ObiWayneKenobi:

Fortunately, John’s has solved this problem

So... did John do this or is there something missing like maybe one of the words "predecessor", "coworker", "team lead" or "boss"?

Fortunately, John’s something has solved this problem by inventing a new SQL data type..


FTFY, at a high level.

I was thinking that John's's legal name is "John's".
Or maybe it's short for Johnas?
Which leaves us to wonder why Johnas posted a WTF that he invented?

bl@h:

CREATE TABLE [CustomerComment] (

[CommentId] INT IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,

... snip ...

[IsComment] BIT NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT [CK_Comments_IsValid]
CHECK ( [IsValid] = 0 )

)

You forgot adding a unique constraint on CustomerComment.IsComment.

I'm guessing someone got mixed up on the concepts of constraint and default constraint.

Fortunately, John’s has solved this problem...

John's what?

A miserable little pile of secrets.

Lastchance:

Fortunately, John’s has solved this problem...

John's what?

I guess someone accidentally John's.

What's a tautology?

Say 'tautology' again. Say 'tautology' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfscker, say 'tautology' one more Goddamn time!

One word tautology: "factoid".

Erm, actually, you could only implement DoesThisRowNotExist with the given constraint - and IsValidOrNotValid would be impossible, as it would always be false...

Me? Pendantic???

Martin

CREATE TABLE catch22 (
a INTEGER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT aRule CHECK (a = 1 AND b = 0),
b INTEGER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT bRule CHECK (a = 0 AND b = 1))

Today's news: database is poorly designed; sky remains blue.

Alargule:

What's a tautology?

No it isn't.

fnord:

The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club

I am the president of the tautology club, because I am the president of the tautology club.

Alargule:

What's a tautology?

Tautology: the study of the tension of the string in a dangling object.

captcha: odio - A massive event in which competitors ride Garfield's chum and try to stay on as long as possible, much to the delight of several spectators dressed in ritual 'John' attire.

[quote user="Ziplodocus"][quote user="Alargule"]ritual "John's" attire.[/quote]

FTFY

Alargule:

What's a tautology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29

"In logic, a tautology is a formula which is true in every possible interpretation."

Remy Porter:

CREATE TABLE catch22 (
a INTEGER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT aRule CHECK (a = 1 AND b = 0),
b INTEGER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT bRule CHECK (a = 0 AND b = 1))

And thus the evil robots were blown up and the Earth was saved.

Adequate enough isn't tautology. It just implies that your aim is mediocrity (or the worst possible implementation that still works).

OMG:

Ziplodocus:

Alargule:

ritual "John's" attire.

FTFY

FTFY

WHAT?! No embedded comment? FAIL!!

That's so you can fulfill the order:

string sql = "insert into CustomerOrder (OrderQty, OrderAmt, IsFulfilled) VALUES(" + intOrderQty + ", " + dblOrderAmt + ", " + (blnFulfilled ? 1 : 0)  + ")";



Try

{

   DBUtility.ExecNonQuery(sql);

}

catch (SqlException ex)

{

   sql = sql = "insert into FulfilledCustomerOrder (OrderQty, OrderAmt, IsFulfilled) VALUES(" + intOrderQty + ", " + dblOrderAmt + ", " + (blnFulfilled ? 1 : 0)  + ")";



   DBUtility.ExecNonQuery(sql);



   // So Visual Studios won't complain about unused variable

   ex.HelpLink = "";

}

Wow, no one has linked the xkcd yet. Shocking!
Granted, someone referenced it, but still...

opp:

Adequate enough isn't tautology. It just implies that your aim is mediocrity (or the worst possible implementation that still works).

Is there a spectrum of adequacy? I would say adequate is an absolute. As good as necessary. I would, however argue that enough is the tautologic word in the case of Adequate Enough

The second rule is the same as first, except that it is second.

In most languages, an "if (true) {}" block creates a new scope. Hardly a tautology.

Alargule:

What's a tautology?

No, what is on second base.

Ah, to be paid by the line.

Faxmachinen:

In most languages, an "if (true) {}" block creates a new scope. Hardly a tautology.

It is when creating the new code block sans the "if (true)" creates the same scope.

Of all the things for me to reply to:

Lorne Kates:

That's so you can fulfill the order:

string sql = "insert into CustomerOrder (OrderQty, OrderAmt, IsFulfilled) VALUES(" + intOrderQty + ", " + dblOrderAmt + ", " + (blnFulfilled ? 1 : 0)  + ")";



Try

{

   DBUtility.ExecNonQuery(sql);

}

catch (SqlException)

{

   sql = sql = "insert into FulfilledCustomerOrder (OrderQty, OrderAmt, IsFulfilled) VALUES(" + intOrderQty + ", " + dblOrderAmt + ", " + (blnFulfilled ? 1 : 0)  + ")";



   DBUtility.ExecNonQuery(sql);



   // So Visual Studios won't complain about unused variable

   //ex.HelpLink = "";

}

FTFY.

Remy Porter:

CREATE TABLE catch22 (
a INTEGER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT aRule CHECK (a = 1 AND b = 0),
b INTEGER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT bRule CHECK (a = 0 AND b = 1))

So on the terms I'm too chickenshit to try this, what happens to SQL Server if you try to implement this?

Martin Milan:

Erm, actually, I could only implement DoesThisRowNotExist with the given constraint - and IsValidOrNotValid would be impossible, as it would always be false...

FTFY

Matt:

A miserable little pile of secrets.

But enough talk! Have at you! Mwa-ha-ha! *teleport*

The real translation of that is SO much better...

PITA:

WHAT?! No embedded comment? FAIL!!

Since databases are known to not have filesystems, it's obvious no embedded comparison was necessary.












if you feel the need to seriously compete with this for trollishness, then you're really whooshed aren't you?

toth:

OMG:

Ziplodocus:

Alargule:

ritual "John's" attire.

FTFY

FTFTFYFY

FTFTFTFYFYFY

drachenstern:

Remy Porter:

CREATE TABLE catch22 (
a INTEGER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT aRule CHECK (a = 1 AND b = 0),
b INTEGER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT bRule CHECK (a = 0 AND b = 1))

So on the terms I'm too chickenshit to try this, what happens to SQL Server if you try to implement this?

I don't see anything wrong, or even paradoxical, about this code. You simply state that in every row inserted, a must equal one and b must equal zero. Also, a must equal zero and b must equal one. Hence, whatever you try to insert in the table, you will only get a constraint violation error.

I do not see any (at least no obvious) way to implement the paradox Remy Porter probably had in mind in procedural code.

nonpartisan:

It is when creating the new code block sans the "if (true)" creates the same scope.

Good point. I didn't actually know C++ allows you to do that either.

How embarrassing... I was about to post in defense of the if(true) construct, but realized I was actually thinking of while(true). Oops!

Phlip:

This isn't a WTF, it's just a standard sanity check. They're just encoding the business rule that customers' orders should never be fulfilled. Now, thanks to that forward-thinking, should a bug in the code ever accidentally fulfil a customer's order, it'll raise an error condition.

That's just robust coding.

I agree. Just create a HasError column like this and set to to 1 whenever there is a problem with the row. PRESTO! Error free programming!

You wouldn't have won if we'd beaten you.
You can observe a lot by just watching.
It's like deja-vu, all over again.
It ain't over till it's over.
A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore.
Congratulations. I knew the record would stand until it was broken.
- Yogi Berra

That WTF was very unique.