Nando Dessena wrote:

>Jim,
>
>J> A more general solution would be a comparison operator that returned
>J> true if the two operands were equivalent -- either equal in value or
>J> both missing. This would avoid a special case in a trigger while making
>J> a useful construct available in all contexts. I'd be surprised if some
>J> other database systems didn't already have such an operator; if so, we
>J> should consider their choice of operator. If I were a less cynical
>J> person, I'd suggest "==".
>
>amen to *every*single*word*.
>One who looks at the archives will find that it has been proposed and
>discussed at length already in the past.
>
>Ciao
>
>

Yep...

Don't know how many times this is discussed, at least once I have raised
the question, but no "final word" was made...

I understand the operator approach and it solves the problem, so I would
be happy with it, this could be more flexible since could be used in
WHERE clauses too.

About other database engines...
When I used MSSQL Server a loooong time ago, If my memory is still good
it has the UPDATED or UPDATE function, this is the reason I suggested
this name, and I think this is a good choice anyway.

Hope the == operator don't start another "null is not a value" debate ;-)

see you !

--

Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda.
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br