Re: Implementation of boolean types.

Jonathan Leffler wrote:
> -CELKO- wrote:
> > SQL deliberately left out Booleans [...]
>
> SQL-1999 and SQL-2003 both have a BOOLEAN type, with recognized values
> TRUE, FALSE and UNKNOWN.

Gotta love committees! Perhaps in the next round, just for fun, the standard could permit the word "mom" as another possible value for an integer type ;-) But for consistency, at least UNKNOWN should then be a recognized value for any numeric types too, don't you think?

> I'm not clear whether NULL is equivalent to
> UNKNOWN or not;

In SQL, NULL is not a value, so these could not be equivalent.

This is an implementation question, but if SQL-99 has BOOLEAN types and ODBC is stuck in SQL-92 standards (which I think is the case, but feel free to correct me on that), what happens when someone tries to access a value of this new type through ODBC? Just curious -- I know it is off-topic.
--dawn Received on Thu Jul 14 2005 - 15:03:05 CEST