Nando Dessena wrote:

>Alexandre,
>
>A> I understand the operator approach and it solves the problem, so I would
>A> be happy with it, this could be more flexible since could be used in
>A> WHERE clauses too.
>
>Yep; and parametric clauses too. It would be a big plus for those who
>want to consider null equivalent to null in some cases.
>
>A> When I used MSSQL Server a loooong time ago, If my memory is still good
>A> it has the UPDATED or UPDATE function, this is the reason I suggested
>A> this name, and I think this is a good choice anyway.
>
>IIRC it has UPDATED() for checking single columns plus an awkward
>bitmask for multiple columns...
>
>A> Hope the == operator don't start another "null is not a value" debate ;-)
>
>As I see it, the semantics for the == operator should be as follows:
>
>(value == value) evaluates to true if the values are equivalent (i.e.
>the comparison for equality is true); it evaluates to false in all
>other cases; it never evaluates to unknown/null.
>
>(value == null) evaluates to false.
>
>(null == value) evaluates to false.
>
>(null == null) evaluates to true.
>
>I think of it as a de-nullified '=' operator.
>
>Ciao
>
>

Nando,

Agreed !



People, could it be done ?

I know it's feature freeze, but how complex is such alteration ?

if it could not be in 2.0, could it be in 2.1, 2.5 ???

see you !

--

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