Re: NULL-safe (in)equality =; overloaded NULL

2011-10-04 Thread Hal�sz S�ndor
 2011/10/02 15:01 +0200, Jigal van Hemert 
You are not using NULL as the original concept of it was. NULL means that the 
value is undefined or unknown.

That is quite true, especially in a table. But, almost from the beginning, NULL 
was overloaded:

set @m = (select sins from emailinglist where email = 'ha...@gmail.com');

This is allowed if the query yields at most one row. If it yields no row @m 
is made NULL--and if field sins may be NULL (not in my case), the outcome is 
indeterminate.

With the aggregate functions MAX and MIN there is a subtler problem: over an 
empty set they yield NULL, even as over a set where every matched value is 
NULL. It is, maybe, more natural if MAX over an empty set yields bottom, and 
MIN over an empty set yields top (likewise for BIT_OR and BIT_AND).

I once worked on a programming language with symbols for no data, bad result, 
indeterminate result,  One can go too far.

But I originally said that the symbol = looks more like inequality than 
equality.


-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org



Re: NULL-safe (in)equality =

2011-10-02 Thread Jigal van Hemert

Hi,

On 1-10-2011 21:51, Halász Sándor wrote:

It is, of course, generally considered more natural to make equality
primary, not inequality, but that symbol that MySQL uses for
NULL-safe equality,=, looks much more like inequality than
equality.


The whole concept and the name of this operator is wrong IMO. There is 
nothing NULL-*safe* about it. Equal and unequal operators are in fact 
more NULL-*safe* than =.



But if I write IF A  B THEN often I want it NULL-safe, for if
one is NULL and the other not, I want that true


You are not using NULL as the original concept of it was. NULL means 
that the value is undefined or unknown.


If a value is undefined it may have *any* value.
So, if you evaluate (A = NULL) the NULL part can have *any* value, even 
A. The result of this compare can only be NULL, because it is not known 
whether it's equal or unequal.


Because of this (NULL = NULL) must be NULL too. (NULL  NULL) must also 
result in NULL. The result is just as undefined/unknown as both values 
which were compared.


The usual solution in the case you describe is that you use a normal 
value in the range of the field type which is not used normally. E.g. 
for an INT field where you only use values of zero or larger you can use 
e.g. -1 as a special value.


If you insist on using NULL and the crazy = operator you can use NOT 
to invert it:

SELECT NOT(A = B);

--
Kind regards / met vriendelijke groet,

Jigal van Hemert.

--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org



NULL-safe (in)equality =

2011-10-01 Thread Hal�sz S�ndor
It is, of course, generally considered more natural to make equality primary, 
not inequality, but that symbol that MySQL uses for NULL-safe equality, =, 
looks much more like inequality than equality. Furthermore, I find that in my 
code I am far oftener interested in NULL-safe _in_equality than equality. If I 
write
IF A = B THEN
then if one is NULL and the other not, and the code is such that never are both 
NULL, well, for my purpose they are not equal: so good. But if I write
IF A  B THEN
often I want it NULL-safe, for if one is NULL and the other not, I want that 
true--and MySQL s symbol for NULL-safe equality looks just right for inequality.

*sigh*


-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org