At 02:52 AM 2/15/00 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:
>>
>> This is a FUNDAMENTAL concept in SQL, one that is mentioned in every
>> SQL book I've seen.
>>
>> The same person probably expects NULL = NULL to return true, too.
>>
>
>IIRC SQL3 defines different /classes/ of nulls where the above could be
>true if the NULLs belong to the same class.
>I.e. the absence of an orange is equal to the absence of the same orange,
>but not equal to the absence of an apple (and possibly another orange) ;)
>I may of course be completely wrong, as I did not read it too carefully
>being after completely other things at that time.
My recent foray into the SQL3 draft with Jan in order to figure out
MATCH <unspecified> semantics makes me suspicious of anyone's claim to
understand what the standard says :)
Particularly the authors!
I'm carrying a length of rope and am keeping mindful of the nearest
lamp post just in case I run across one in the street by accident.
>I also could not figue out the use for such a feature.
Well, I just looked at Date's summary of SQL3 and while he talks
about the new user datatype and mild object-oriented innovations,
he doesn't talk about any change in the meaning of NULL. Since
he makes no effort to hide his loathing for NULL or three-valued
logic as implemented in SQL, if it had changed I'm certain he
would've mentioned it.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.