Re: NULLs: theoretical problems?
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:24:14 -0700
Message-ID: <1188239054.049413.37180_at_k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
Marshall wrote:
> On Aug 27, 7:20 am, "V.J. Kumar" <vjkm..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Whenever we have def(x), any formula
> > will evaluate to 'false'.
>
> I'm not sure if you're just typing too fast and leaving stuff
> out or what.
Yeah, guilty as charged. Since yesterday, i've been and still am posting from my phone and let me tell you, it's not easy !
Obviously, i've lost "and x is undefined".
My real question has been what we gain by using the construct in comparison to the sql three value logic.
>
> In the proposed construct, it cannot be said what def(x):f(x)
> evaluates to without knowing at least whether x is defined
> or not, and if it is, further knowing what f is.
>
> You have to know those things before you can say what it
> evaluates to. The construct is not a new way to write "false"
> or anything like that.
>
>
> Marshall
Received on Mon Aug 27 2007 - 20:24:14 CEST