On Sat, May 11, 2024, 16:34 David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM David G. Johnston < > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:44 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >>> Having said that, I reiterate my proposal that we make it a new >>> >> <sect1> under DDL, before 5.2 Default Values which is the first >>> place in ddl.sgml that assumes you have heard of nulls. >> >> >> I will go with this and remove the "Data Basics" section I wrote, leaving >> it to be just a discussion about null values. The tutorial is the only >> section that really needs unique wording to fit in. No matter where we >> decide to place it otherwise the core content will be the same, with maybe >> a different section preface to tie it in. >> >> > v3 Attached. > > Probably at the 90% complete mark. Minimal index entries, not as thorough > a look-about of the existing documentation as I'd like. Probably some > wording and style choices to tweak. Figured better to get feedback now > before I go into polish mode. In particular, tweaking and re-running the > examples. > > Yes, I am aware of my improper indentation for programlisting and screen. > I wanted to be able to use the code folding features of my editor. Those > can be readily un-indented in the final version. > > The changes to func.sgml is basically one change repeated something like > 20 times with tweaks for true/false. Plus moving the discussion regarding > the SQL specification into the new null handling section. > > It took me doing this to really understand the difference between row > constructors and composite typed values, especially since array > constructors produce array typed values and the constructor is just an > unimportant implementation option while row constructors introduce > meaningfully different behaviors when used. > > My plan is to have a v4 out next week, without or without a review of this > draft, but then the subsequent few weeks will probably be a bit quiet. > + The cardinal rule, a given null value is never + <link linkend="functions-comparison-op-table">equal or unequal</link> + to any other non-null. Again, doesn't this imply it tends to be equal to another null by its omission? Thom >
