Re: Does Codd's view of a relational database differ from that ofDate& Darwin? [M.Gittens]

Alexandr Savinov wrote:
>
> ... If something disappears, if something is
> deleted then acutally we get null.

i think we get 'false', according to the CWA.

> ...

i'd like to know what problem the never-ending arguments about nulls are aimed at. in mundane applications at least (which i think is where most people spend their time), what is the problem with using empty strings for unknown names or zeroes for unknown number values? if the db user has allowed tuples with such attribute values then they should expect to have to judge the results accordingly, such as ones produced by aggregate functions. if they want to record some other kind of 'meta-data' such as keying problems, then they can define relations specific to those.

i'd rather see a debate about something rather than literally 'nothing', say second-order predicate calculus.

(don't want to be another troll but can't resist - sometimes i wonder if all the null talk here and seemingly everywhere else isn't just another big hoax, like the OO and XML ones, foisted on the world by coders or kibitzers from outside fields who aren't happy with their procedural lot in life, not to mention middlemen who see money in it.)

pc Received on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 10:38:31 CDT