Boost logo

Boost :

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.



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at