Re: boolean datatype ... wtf?
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:05:24 -0300
Message-ID: <4cacba65$0$14800$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 6:51 AM, Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:44:08 -0700 (PDT), Erwin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 okt, 00:53, Hugo Kornelis <h..._at_perFact.REMOVETHIS.info.INVALID>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 10:42:50 -0300, Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes either of those choices logical?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>
>>>>> My first observation is that these three possibilities do not come
>>>>> from
>>>>> a single domain. Male and female are values from the domain of
>>>>> genders;
>>>>> unknown is not. So it would be wrong to define a domain with three
>>>>> values to represent the three possibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if unknown is not in the same domain as male and female, then what
>>>>> is it?
>>>>
>>>> From domain boolean ?
>>>
>>> Eh? I guess I don't understand what you mean. Why bring up the domain
>>> boolean at this point in my reasoning? Either I misunderstand what you
>>> try to say, or you misunderstood what I tried to say.
>>
>> Hugo, you misunderstand the simplest of things.
> > I don't think it's so simple. I know people who think there is a third > sex, maybe even a fourth, and other people who don't.
I don't see what bearing that has on whether the null marker is a boolean flag. Received on Wed Oct 06 2010 - 20:05:24 CEST