> > > 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.

Is that say? Gimme an example :-)

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server.
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com

> isn't it time we picked up on a bit of "slang" and brought it into
> legitimacy?
> Alan