Geoff Worboys wrote:

>There is a "denullifying spray" - its called triggers, lots
>and lots of triggers. A PITA and rather annoying to have to
>write or generate but it is the solution that I apply. But
>even this does not negate NULL as an issue completely.
>
>I have no particular problem with NULL or ternary logic. Once
>it has been explained it seems a natural and fitting solution
>to real situations - situations that even the self-professed
>doyens of databases (C.J.Date et al) have been unable to
>resolve in any convincing manner (well I am not convinced, and
>that is whats important to me ;-).
>
>What I object to is having it foisted on me everywhere,
>instead of just those places where it is really must apply.
>
>
>

This sound interesting, but I understand what the problem is. Isn't a
declaration "not null" on fields that can't be null sufficient? Please
explain a little more.

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376