Subject Re: [firebird-support] Re: seems bug : Field accepts NULL Values (empty string) even if it is defined w
Author Jonathan Neve
Martijn Tonies wrote:

>Hi John,
>>I think the designers of the SQL Spec picked a bad name in 'NULL'.
>>Just looked it up in the dictionary:
>>"Amounting to nothing : NIL
>>3 : having no value : INSIGNIFICANT
>>4 a : having no elements <null set> b : having zero as a limit <null
>>sequence> c of a matrix : having all elements equal to zero
>>5 a : indicating usually by a zero reading on a scale when a given
>>quantity (as current or voltage) is zero or when two quantities are
>>equal -- used of an instrument b : being or relating to a method of
>>measurement in which an unknown quantity (as of electric current) is
>>compared with a known quantity of the same kind and found equal by a
>>null detector
>>6 : of, being, or relating to zero
>>7 : ZERO 1c "
>>This confuses loads of SQL novices I know - especially when they're
>>programmers too, ('null pointers' etc, and in C# difference
>>between 'null' and 'DBNull.Value'!). Personally I always prefer to
>>say "if (x is DBNull)", more like sql syntax.
>>SQL should have chosen UNKNOWN as the name of the state, in my
>>However, I agree that Firebird is totally correct in it's handling of
>>null strings!
>And add to the confusion that in Dutch, the word for zero (0)
>is pronounced as "null" (but written like "nul"). :-)
Well, in French, FWIW (probably not much), zero is said zéro, but if you
say a field is "nul" (pronounced with a french 'u', like the german
'ü'), it means that it has value 0...

Anyway, perhaps that's enough linguistics!!

Jonathan Neve.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]