Re: So what's null then if it's not nothing?

In article <1134752545.776971.114510_at_g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, boston103_at_hotmail.com says...
>
> > If I had my way, "NULL" wouldn't be a
> > valid expression. We would just have IS_NULL() and SET_NULL(), and NULL
> > as such couldn't possibly show up in a truth table or literal
> > expression.
>
> Sounds good, but this approach will almost define NULL out of
> existence, you can as well just not use it.

Hmmm... I meant this mainly as a difference in syntax; the concept of NULL-ness is still there. But instead of "<expression> IS NULL", you say "IS_NULL(<expression>)", and instead of "SET column = NULL" you say "SET_NULL(column)". "X = NULL", "NULL = NULL" and so on are syntax errors (unless you have named some variable/column NULL, of course); "NULL" is not a keyword. Perhaps you will find that the 'consistently insane slaughter' is still there, only better hidden. :)

> Would any operation with NULL fail except those three you've defined ?

I'm not sure what you mean... but if IS_NULL(x) is TRUE, all expressions involving x will also cause IS_NULL() to return TRUE, no matter what operations are involved---if that is what you mean by "fail".

-- 
Jon