Gene Wirchenko schrieb:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:17:53 +0100, Alexandr Savinov
> <spam_at_conceptoriented.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Gene Wirchenko schrieb:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:47:53 +0100, Alexandr Savinov
>>><spam_at_conceptoriented.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>JOG schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Alexandr Savinov wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>What people cannot understand is that we cannot simply disable nulls. It
>>>>>>is too simplistic point of view. It is not possible to say that we will
>>>>>>not use nulls and that is all. Why? Because the notion of absence exists
>>>>>>in almost any data model. We need to know if an object exists or not. If
>>>>>>yes, then we get some value. If not then we get null.
>
>
>>> No, if not, we get another value.
>>
>>No, it is not a value - it is an absence of value. Ok, if you like to
>>refer to absence of thing as thing then why not. But I find it somehow
>
>
> I was not referring to NULL when I stated "another value".
>
> Does an object exist? If it does, we get the answer yes. If it
> does not, we get the answer no. No NULL is needed.
That is a terminological dispute. Whatever you call non-existence and
the sign to denote it (no, NULL, empty string, 0, 1276), it remains
non-existence. The problem in its operational semantics.
--
http://conceptoriented.com
Received on Mon Nov 21 2005 - 03:11:49 CST
