Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?
Date: 21 Dec 2005 03:18:54 -0800
Message-ID: <1135163934.902445.173900_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Jon Heggland wrote:
> In article <1135101771.500753.166330_at_g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> boston103_at_hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > '+' is irrelevant. :) In any case, I'm not interested in defending how
> > > SQL NULLs work.
> >
> > Sound good to me. Ignorance is a choice, surely.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Whose ignorance is helped by my
> *defending* (not explaining, or learning) how SQL NULLs work?
You said: " '+' is irrelevant. :)" which can be interpreted as either you insist on being militantly ignorant, or you pretend to be incapable of undertsanding my question (faking ignorance) although you've understood the question perfectly well all along. Acting so is *your* choice that makes a rational discussion of the subject impossible. which is perfecly fine with me.
"In any case, I'm not interested in defending how SQL NULLs work" is a
non sequitur. I did not ask whether or not you were interested in
"defending how SQL NULLs work" but rather what '+' means in *your*,
not SQL'92's, suggestion to evaluate 2 + X to NULL if X happens to be
NULL:
<quote>
JH:
> Yes. :) The exception being that the entire expression is considered
> null.
VC:
So is it your assertion that 2 + X evaluates to NULL if X happens to be
NULL ? If so, what is '+' then ?
</quote>
> --
> Jon
Received on Wed Dec 21 2005 - 12:18:54 CET