On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 02:46:50PM +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thus it could be, that NULL in "where column = NULL" is not defined
> > to have a special meaning according to SQL92.
>
> The way I interpret Celko's interpretation of SQL92, that specific
> construct has a meaning; it evaluates to UNKNOWN, thus not to TRUE,
> and the WHERE clause becomes useless, as does any other combination of
> a theta operator and the explicit constant 'NULL'. This is almost,
> but not quite, an argument for allowing "= NULL" for "IS NULL". ;-)
>
> Does anyone out there have the actual text of the standard?
>
> -tih
I dont know the standard for that, but to add an experience in another
server (Interbase), '= null' has no meaning in Interbase, ie, doesnt
works as 'IS NULL'.
Sergio Bruder
--
(
)) (tm) http://sergio.bruder.net
|""|-. http://pontobr.org
|__|-' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pub 1024D/0C7D9F49 2000-05-26 Sergio Devojno Bruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Key fingerprint = 983F DBDF FB53 FE55 87DF 71CA 6B01 5E44 0C7D 9F49
sub 1024g/138DF93D 2000-05-26
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
