John Porter wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > Since undef() has established semantics, I don't think these should
> > change. I believe taking from RDBMS and adding null() which has the
> > correct NULL semantics is the way it should go.
>
> You realize, I hope, that there is no end of different "special non-value"
> semantics. Perl had one, now you're proposing a second. RDBMS gurus
> have as many as 29. One step down that path is a bad precedent.
> undef is sufficient. Let there be operators for implementing the various
> semantics, NOT new special non-value values.
29 different, but complete, sets of operators would be required, and you would
be restricted to using only one of the "special non-value" values at a time.
RDBMS gurus need at least some of their 29 to coexist. Not a solution.
--
Glenn
=====
Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you just sit there.
-- Will Rogers
_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
