Subject: Re: [boost] SQL: next iteration of sqlpp11
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-03 11:33:29
On 2/3/2014 10:03 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
> On 2014-02-03 14:50, Bjorn Reese wrote:
>> Table columns have a _can_be_null option. How about handling this
>> implicitly by declaring the _value_type be a boost::optional type?
> Hi Bjorn,
> I thought about using boost::optional for some time, but decided against
> it for the time being.
> 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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk