Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?

Jon Heggland wrote:
> In article <1134752545.776971.114510_at_g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> boston103_at_hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > If I had my way, "NULL" wouldn't be a
> > > valid expression. We would just have IS_NULL() and SET_NULL(), and NULL
> > > as such couldn't possibly show up in a truth table or literal
> > > expression.
> >
> > Sounds good, but this approach will almost define NULL out of
> > existence, you can as well just not use it.
>
> Hmmm... I meant this mainly as a difference in syntax; the concept of
> NULL-ness is still there. But instead of "<expression> IS NULL", you say
> "IS_NULL(<expression>)", and instead of "SET column = NULL" you say
> "SET_NULL(column)". "X = NULL", "NULL = NULL" and so on are syntax
> errors (unless you have named some variable/column NULL, of course);
> "NULL" is not a keyword. Perhaps you will find that the 'consistently
> insane slaughter' is still there, only better hidden. :)
>
> > Would any operation with NULL fail except those three you've defined ?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean... but if IS_NULL(x) is TRUE, all expressions
> involving x will also cause IS_NULL() to return TRUE, no matter what
> operations are involved---if that is what you mean by "fail".

So nothing really changes except the notation ?

> --
> Jon
Received on Sat Dec 17 2005 - 00:50:22 CET