> sad wrote:
> > On Friday 25 June 2004 09:37, Rosser Schwarz wrote:
> >>On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:16:47 +0400, sad <sad@bankir.ru> wrote:
> >>>>Very simply, a boolean may have to values: true or false. It's also
> >>>>possible that it's not been set to anything (NULL).
> >>>
> >>>really ?
> >>>what about (13 < NULL)::BOOL
> >>
> >>Per the semantics of NULL, 13 is neither greater than nor less than
> >>NULL. NULL is the *unknown* value; it's impossible to meaningfully
> >>compare it to anything else. Try (NULL = NULL)::boolean. It's NULL,
> >>also.
> >
> > READ THE THREAD BEFORE ANSWER
>
> WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE HASN'T?
I had answered to the proposal to PROHIBIT NULL VALUES
> The key point of argument, and where the problem is with your (13 <
> NULL)::BOOL point is this:
IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM !!! it is an EXAMPLE WHY WE CAN NOT PROHIBIT NULLS !!!
