Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s54.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Marshall Spight" Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory References: Subject: Re: 4 the FAQ: Are Commercial DBMS Truly Relational? Lines: 30 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: <%F%9d.153335$wV.82298@attbi_s54> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.5.186.86 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s54 1097369339 24.5.186.86 (Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:48:59 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:48:59 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:48:59 GMT Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.theory:26700 "Laconic2" wrote in message news:J9SdnUjaIoazlfXcRVn-tg@comcast.com... > > "Kenneth Downs" wrote in message > news:irs8kc.9nv.ln@mercury.downsfam.net... > > > Hmmm, have never needed NULLS myself, and the customers have never > > complained. I believe they can always be engineered out. Let the flames > > begin :) > > > > I use NULLS freely myself, RDM be damned. Sometimes it's a fairly trivial > feature of the data, like people with no middle initial. In that case, > I'm either going to plug in a dummy value, like blank, or let SQL make it > a NULL. And in that case, I really don't care which it does. With a better type system, the question wouldn't even come up. But we're stuck with SQL for now, so your approach is virtually inevitable. > But that's not the way I design. Call me an unrepentant sinner, but I use > NULLS. You, sir, are an unrepentant sinner. I do the same thing. But I dream of a world where I won't have to. Marshall