Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?
From: Alexandr Savinov <spam_at_conceptoriented.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:11:49 +0100
Message-ID: <43818f67$1_at_news.fhg.de>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:11:49 +0100
Message-ID: <43818f67$1_at_news.fhg.de>
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.comReceived on Mon Nov 21 2005 - 10:11:49 CET