Hi Roy, On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Roy Lyseng <[email protected]> wrote: >> No kidding - you are right of course - I did not consider the >> possibility that the NULL was meant as notation of the value - I >> though the NULL keyword was meant as is...my blind spot. > > You made me think - again... > > You can even have a static and a dynamic error check. The static check could > give a "Syntax error" or "NULL value not allowed as function argument" (NULL > is simply not allowed as a format), whereas the dynamic check would spit out > "Invalid format for conversion". > > However, this being a function, which usually allows a more general syntax > specification than other constructs, it is OK to skip the static check and > delay any checking to runtime.
Yes - that seems the sensible thing to do. The error is that the null-value is not a valid format, no matter how it came about. The NULL keyword is just another expression that evaluates to the null value. > > Thanks, > Roy > -- Roland Bouman http://rpbouman.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
