From: Jan Hidders <>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:44:00 GMT
Message-ID: <Q%Gpe.114410$>

mAsterdam wrote:

> Earlier I wrote (in fact _we_ wrote, I summarized):

>> [NULL]
>> The insanity bit. No! The humility marker.
>> mu: The absence of an answer to a question which requires an answer.
>> /adj./
>> 1. Attributes to something the absence of values.
>> Ex: "The *null* set is the empty set, often represented by {}."
>> /n. colloq./
>> 1. A noted appearance of the absence of values.
>> Ex: "This table contains *nulls*."
>> Common usage:
>> - Confusion arises when people use terms like "null value",
>> a paradox to some, a contradictio in terminis to others.
>> - Confusion arises due to the fact that nullness (the absence of value)
>> is often represented on computers by the number 0.
>> (Obviously, 0 is not null.)
>> - In some contexts, 'null' and 'nil' mean the same thing; in others,
>> they do not.
>> In databases traditionally NULL is used and and opposed.
>> If you want to go into this, please first search for
>> mu NIL void NULL undef, 2VL 3VL.
>> "It isn't the things we don't know that give us trouble.
>> It's the things we know that ain't so." - Will Rogers
> I now think this is to much from the "NULL is the absence of value"
> point of view. Any suggestions for improvement?

I'm still a bit puzzled by this list. What is it exactly that you want to achieve with it? I thought the point was to avoid confusion over important terms in database theory. In this form it IMO only adds to the confusion. But maybe I'm wrong about its goal, I wasn't around when you guys started this.

  • Jan Hidders
Received on Wed Jun 08 2005 - 20:44:00 CEST

Original text of this message