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

mountain man wrote:
>
> Obviously many solutions may be considered on their respective
> merits. Codd, Date, SQL-92, and the 2005 "incarnate" versions
> of SQL-DBMS (ie: the "SQL" of MS, IBM, Oracle for example)
> represent examples of possible solutions to this problem of missing
> information.
>
> Some of these use one null, others multiple, and some (Date) try
> to do without nulls.

I don't think that is Chris Date's position. He is not against null values per se, he is against the way that null values are treated in SQL. If you are going to define a domain that includes a special value along with operations on this domain that deal with this special value, then Date will probably not object.

• Jan Hidders