Re: Warning about null and open question to Oracle

In article <3rnui6$mdf_at_News1.mcs.com>, stowe_at_mcs.net says...
>
 

>
>... Since a NULL is not TRUE, it will not behave like a TRUE result. Some
> people seem to forget this, or never learn it in the first place.
>

I agree. After 2 dozen responses over 5 days this thread has reached no consensus...for good reason. The general views seem to be:

1. "It seems to me, nulls should work like...come on Oracle"
2. "Sorry, Oracle is SQL standard compliant with respect to nulls..."
3. "Forget nulls..."

It would seem to me that you are all very interested in getting the job done. My advice to those interested in trying to learn nulls: Master the relational theory. To those who think they've got a better idea: Maybe. But unless you know the 25 year history of relational theory, you probably are suggesting nothing new. To those not inclined to study the theory: You're armchair quarterbacks. Get serious or get out of the business. You're doing your users a disservice. To those who defend three-valued logic (that's nulls for you quarterbacks): Good luck trying to get a user to take a course on set theory. If they don't understand nulls properly (and a quick glance at this thread suggests they won't), there's a good chance they will get wrong answers. Users need to get serious too, but three and four-value logic is a bit of a stretch.

Tom Jamieson
pp003009_at_interramp.com Received on Sun Jun 18 1995 - 00:00:00 CEST