Re: [HACKERS] Re: Comparisons on NULLs (was Re: A small problem...)

Thus spake David Gould
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> writes:
> > Hmmm.  That would be a problem.  Of course, we could treat the null
> > value at the higher level too.  I guess that's why we have the "IS
> > NULL" syntax in the first place.  It is different than comparing the
> > actual values.
> 
> SELECT * FROM t WHERE b = NULL;
> 
> _should not_ return any rows. NULL is not "=" to anything, not even another
> NULL. NULL is also not ">", or "<", or "!=" to anything either.
> 
> So, "NULL = NULL" is false as is "NULL != NULL".
> 
> This indeed is why we have "IS NULL" and "IS NOT NULL".

But no one really has a use for a statement that can never return a row.
If we need that we always have "-- select 1;" (1/2 :-)) so why not let
"= NULL" be a synonym for "IS NULL" and "NOT = NULL" be a synonym for "IS
NOT NULL?"

Well, other than the fact  that M$ does it?  (Other 1/2 of that :-))

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.