Hi! Sorry for not responding earlier, and thank you for your advice, Tommi.
> > For now, I am working around the issue like this: > > string my_string = ( my_row.isNull(1) ? "" : my_row[1].getString() ); […] > You can easily work around it using: > > string my_string; > myrow[1] >> my_string; > > The >> operator does nothing, if the value is null. It just returns > false. If you are not interested in the return value, just ignore it as > in my example. This is nice. I am still sticking to the isNull-solution for now, it seems more intuitive to me, or it least it shows what is going on, while operator>> looks a little obscure to me. > And I don't feel it too intuitive to return an empty string for a null > value. Either the field contains an empty string or it is null. You are of course correct. Being a SQL novice, I did not realize there was a difference between empty strings and null. Carlos
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
_______________________________________________ Tntnet-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tntnet-general
