Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:06:17 +0100
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:03:44 +0100, mAsterdam wrote:
>Roy Hann wrote:
>> If that is all there is to it, then it definitely needs to be extended.
>> Without implying that I approve of the three existing so-called meanings (I
>> don't), it needs to include (at least) a fourth possibility: "meaningful
>> value not even possible". Used when multiple dissimilar entity types are
>> (wrongly) conflated.
>"meaningful value not even possible" is one of more plausible
>explanations of "Absent value". I think one needs more (for instance
>a statement that the conflated entities are dissimilar) to express
>"meaningful value not even possible" than just 'null'. IOW,
>"meaningful value not even possible" is more specific than 'null',
>goes beyond 'null'.
Agreed - but the same can be said about "Unknown value" and "Absent value", which are included as possibility (1) and (2) in the definition. Why include two possible meanings, but leave out a third?
Or rather: why include any of those assumptions at all?
-- (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)Received on Sun Nov 20 2005 - 21:06:17 CET