Re: Proposal: 6NF
Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:07:54 -0700
Message-ID: <1161014874.873928.69260_at_m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
JOG wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > > http://groups.google.be/group/comp.databases.theory/msg/9cde17e40781c251?hl=en&
> > Stating that SQL NULLS do not treat NULL as a value is NOT the same
> > thing as stating that SQL NULL is not a value. One refers to a
> > resulting behavior while the other refers to an definition.
>
> Cimode this is silly - if you've read any of Jan's posts you will know
> he is more than aware of the nature of NULLs. We all make mistakes, and
> in this case it would be good to have the grace to acknowledge it.
Silly? Detail is everything in science...Finding somebody that show intuitions about a specific subject such as NULLS is easy...Not being able to recognize and state things in a clear way is nothing but mental masturbation...
Saying that SQL NULL do not treat as a value instead of saying that NULL is not a value is mental masturbation. I was ready to put that on a communication problem level until I read next comments from that idiot...
In the next sentence, he accepts the consequences of asserting bullshits such as REALS/REALS --> REALS and gets proud about it. Which confirms his ignorance and certainly won't motivate me to ackowlegde it was a communication problem rather than bullshits... Received on Mon Oct 16 2006 - 18:07:54 CEST