Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?
From: Jon Heggland <heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:56:10 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.1e07ca177d7e3ea6989743_at_news.ntnu.no>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:56:10 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.1e07ca177d7e3ea6989743_at_news.ntnu.no>
In article <1134398492.114314.228660_at_g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
boston103_at_hotmail.com says...
>
> There is indeed no problem with using the same word, but why use *two*?
Who knows? Why did Codd use both 'null' and small omega? I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I think it is no worse (better, in fact) than using one word for two concepts.
-- JonReceived on Mon Dec 12 2005 - 17:56:10 CET