Re: min(); never no_data_found
From: joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <799a158c-7229-4232-82a0-264a4a6303c0_at_d4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 23, 7:10 am, Jeremy <jeremy0..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <79bb2ee5-f28a-43b9-af1e-4597012495f0
> _at_a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Mark.Powe..._at_hp.com says...
>
>
>
> > Cate, why not test for a NULL value being returned and if so the RAISE
> > NO_DATA_FOUND?
>
> What's the opinion of this ng's contributors on the advisability of
> raising "standard" error conditions when the underlying reasons for
> raising that error are different?
>
> To me it seems like a practice not to be recommended - potential for
> misleading people unfamiliar with the code later on in maintenance mode.
>
> --
> jeremy
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <799a158c-7229-4232-82a0-264a4a6303c0_at_d4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 23, 7:10 am, Jeremy <jeremy0..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <79bb2ee5-f28a-43b9-af1e-4597012495f0
> _at_a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Mark.Powe..._at_hp.com says...
>
>
>
> > Cate, why not test for a NULL value being returned and if so the RAISE
> > NO_DATA_FOUND?
>
> What's the opinion of this ng's contributors on the advisability of
> raising "standard" error conditions when the underlying reasons for
> raising that error are different?
>
> To me it seems like a practice not to be recommended - potential for
> misleading people unfamiliar with the code later on in maintenance mode.
>
> --
> jeremy
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=then+null+site%3Atkyte.blogspot.com
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/22/russian-hackers-citigroup-cyber-securityReceived on Thu Dec 24 2009 - 00:39:30 CST