Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:37:18 GMT
Message-ID: <Oa4lf.12159$ea6.6660_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
> Yes this is just going to go round in circles. There is a camp of fine,
> intelligent and no doubt dashingly good looking people on this board
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:37:18 GMT
Message-ID: <Oa4lf.12159$ea6.6660_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
JOG wrote:
> David Cressey wrote:
>
>>"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1133723820.633095.187640_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >>>David Cressey wrote: >> >>>>Q: is 4 greater than (no comment)? >>>>A: (no comment) >>> >>>Here is where you are injecting a third value where I just think it is >>>so much easier to work with a 2VL. >> >>(no comment) isn't a value. It's a marker indicating the absence of a >>value. >> >>Here we go again. >> >>This is the thread that never ends.
>
> Yes this is just going to go round in circles. There is a camp of fine,
> intelligent and no doubt dashingly good looking people on this board
Hey, I resemble that remark!
> who see that a null is not a value, but a flag or a marker, and as such
> has no place in any logical system. Then there are pickies who know
> this, but say, hey who cares about all that, look at how great our
> system works. And then there are the null-ites. What more can be said?
Heh heh - no doubt it will be LOTS! What is more interesting is infering the motives of some of the anti SQL protagonists. Personally I don't lose any sleep over NULL (what an awful pun - in my defence, unintended) regardless of the variances that exist in vendor dialects. Perhaps I really am a sad case!
Cheers, Frank. Received on Tue Dec 06 2005 - 00:37:18 CET