Re: [DOCS] NULL as a (pseudo-)value not described?

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:24 PM, johnlumby wrote: > On 09/11/14 10:03, David Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:24 AM, John Lumby wrote: > > ​As I mentioned before the fact that null is a literal/constant is > assumed. My point here is that given that assumption the referenced section

Re: [DOCS] NULL as a (pseudo-)value not described?

On 09/11/14 10:03, David Johnston wrote: John, please respond to the list next time. Sorry, I was not sure if I understood what you were saying. Now I do ... On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:24 AM, John Lumby > wrote: Thanks David ... but ... (below) --

Re: [DOCS] NULL as a (pseudo-)value not described?

John, please respond to the list next time. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:24 AM, John Lumby wrote: > Thanks David ... but ... (below) > > > > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:20:00 -0700 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > >