Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: seems bug : Field accepts NULL Values (empty string) even if it is defined w |
---|---|
Author | Nando Dessena |
Post date | 2004-03-23T05:33:46Z |
David, all,
D> Just like someone else was stating, if we had been unable to set the fields to
D> NULL, we would've had to have had a separate field for each value we were
D> collecting to declare it's possible NULL state.
the usefulness of having a special value that indicates that a value
is missing is unquestioned. The usefulness of NULL and tri-state
boolean logic as the SQL standard prescribes it is more problematic to
defend. Relational algebra doesn't know what a NULL is. So relational
databases shouldn't have known as well.
Ciao
--
Nando Dessena
mailto:nandod@...
D> Just like someone else was stating, if we had been unable to set the fields to
D> NULL, we would've had to have had a separate field for each value we were
D> collecting to declare it's possible NULL state.
the usefulness of having a special value that indicates that a value
is missing is unquestioned. The usefulness of NULL and tri-state
boolean logic as the SQL standard prescribes it is more problematic to
defend. Relational algebra doesn't know what a NULL is. So relational
databases shouldn't have known as well.
Ciao
--
Nando Dessena
mailto:nandod@...