Re: min(); never no_data_found

From: Jeremy <jeremy0505_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:02:13 -0000
Message-ID: <MPG.259d4c7d45b43d939897b5_at_News.Individual.NET>

In article <799a158c-7229-4232-82a0-264a4a6303c0 _at_d4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, joel-garry_at_home.com says...>
> 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.
> >

>
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=then+null+site%3Atkyte.blogspot.com
>

Not sure why you posted that - my question is simply is it bad practice to raise an exception that means something specific when the underlying condition found is something diffferent? As in the example here where someone is finding that a value is NULL but wishes to treat that as no_data_found.

-- 
jeremy

Received on Thu Dec 24 2009 - 04:02:13 CST