Talk:Storage record

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Merge section into record (computer science)

Suggestion sep 2009

The merging of these two articles would not be the most beneficial action to users. It may cause much confusion. The "Storage Record" article refers more heavily to the idea of records used in input and output, especially with files. However, the "Record (computer science)" article concentrates on the record datatype (also called structs, esp. in C style languages). The latter type of record is more like a stripped down class, while the former intended as to organized IO data. Kwvan (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not how record (computer science) is today. It covers both the user-defined type (UDT), language construct as well as the row-based storage concept. IMO storage record is not a notable term. I think this term can be used to differentiate from the UDT, but I don't think it's all that commonly used. I'd say WP is inventing a term here. I think the concept for both UDT and storage are both called record. I think either the current record (computer science) should cover both as it does today and then this page storage record is not needed. Or these two articles should be replaced with something like: record (user-defined type) and record (storage). IMO, I think it's fine to cover both in the same article. There definitely is a difference between UDT and storage, but there is lots of overlap too. For example, one often uses a UDT to hold the data of a storage row ... because a row is essentially the same sort of thing as a UDT. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Records in the programming-language sense are used for more than just records in the file/database sense, and records in the file/database sense aren't always represented by records in the programming-language sense, so I wouldn't merge the two pages. Cross-references between the two might make sense.

This page probably should be renamed to something such as "record (storage)". The other page should perhaps be "record (data type)" - the page about array types is array (data type), without "user-defined". (Not all arrays have the same data type; the dimensionality, and the type of elements, differ.) Guy Harris (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]