On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Micah Gersten <micah@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Robert Cummings wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 00:16 +0000, Nathan Rixham wrote: > > > >> Ashley Sheridan wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 23:23 +0000, ceo@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> > >>>> Presumable, the EXISTS sub-query can be optimized sometimes to just > stop processing the sub-query and kick things back out to the outer query. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> IN has to process them all and find them all. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Don't forget the special case use as well: > >>> > >>> IF NOT EXISTS `universe` THEN bigbang() > >>> > >>> > >>> Ash > >>> www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > >>> > >>> > >> any chance of writing the implementation of that bigbang() function? > >> > > > > If nothing exists and a universe is created via a big bang... does it > > make a sound? Can we realistically call it a big bang if it doesn't make > > a sound? Couldn't we call it the big light show? But then again... if > > nothing exists and a universe is created via a big light show... does it > > matter? Can it be perceived? Is this just a proverbial pandrödinger's > > box? You can't implement the bigbang() function if you don't exist. > > > > Cheers, > > Rob. > > > The function doesn't say who's doing the creating, it just checks for > the existence of the universe. Lol, I agree, the function bigbang() doesn't need to be implemented (or it could be empty if it needs to be there for this line to work), because by definition, the universe must exist, if this statement is to exist. Although it would be interesting to see an implementation of a simulation of bigbang(). And, I would say there is a sound, even if no one is there to hear it, assuming it to have happened. Also if there were no sound, there would be no light show either, there would be nothing, which contradicts the assumption that the big bang was there (exists)... Guys, I think this is taking it a bit far...
