Subject: Re: [boost] SQL: next iteration of sqlpp11
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-03 12:27:42
On 2014-02-03 18:22, Johan Baltié wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]
>>> wrote:
>>> In most usecases I encountered so far, it is totally OK to interpret
>>>> NULL values like default values, e.g. NULL strings and empty strings, or
>>>> NULL foreign keys or 0LL. For those usecases it would be quite annoying
>>>> to have to check if there really is a value, or always use
>>>> get_optional_value_or...
>>>>
>>> You are wrong ! Having a database NULL value is completely different from
>>> having an empty string or a 0 value. Please reconsider. The
>> boost::optional
>>> is the correct choice.
>>
>> +1
>
> I do agree.
> NULL means "no data", not "0".In SQL "NULL = NULL" is false.
>
> Oracle chose empty string to be equivalent to NULL and it's quite a pain to
> handle from a developper point of view.
>
Yeah, heard of that. And it would certainly be bad, if sqlpp11 did the
same. It does not.
If you want to interpret NULL as NULL, fine, use the .is_null() method
to check.
If you want to interpret NULL as "" or 0, also fine, just get the value.
Best,
Roland