>
> > I always know that you can't compare NULL to anything but I
> must say it's
> > just a little ambiguous to have say
> > update table set field=NULL
> > instead of
> > update table set field to null
> > As infrequently as I use this statement, I find myself writing
> the latter
> > and having to correct myself to the former.
>
> Why? The "=" operator in an UPDATE statement
> doesn't mean "equals", it means "becomes".
>
> Hence, FIELD <becomes operator> 5 or
> FIELD <becomes operator> NULL
>
> Sounds fine to me.
>
> With regards,
>
> Martijn Tonies

agreed - it's assignment...

is it null?
is it the same as null?
is it what I expect when I expect null?
is it equal to what I expect when I expect null?
is it null?
but it's not equal to null when I know it's null, it's just null
and it's not equal to null when I know it has a null state and does not have
a value, it's just null

when does popular expectation or vernacular finally get the better of a
standard written eons ago?
we can test equality to null in most prgramming languages but not still in
SQL.
isn't it time we picked up on a bit of "slang" and brought it into
legitimacy?
Alan