Subject: Re: [boost] SQL: next iteration of sqlpp11
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-04 02:05:52
On 2014-02-03 17:33, Edward Diener wrote:
> 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.
after a short night's sleep I drafted a document for how sqlpp11 could
cover both use cases:
1. NULL is NULL and nothing else, dammit!
2. NULL or 0? Sometimes I just don't care.
Please let me know what you think.