Re: [gnome-db] GnomeDbForm

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 01:59, Paisa Seeluangsawat wrote:
> I was just thinking that if NULL were not a separate type, things
> could be a bit easier for several people.  It jibes well with
> conventional sql concept.  It also allows people to depend on
> gda_value_get_type for the expected GdaType.
> 
> It gets even better in situations where string<->number conversion is
> considered cheap or is already required (e.g. in Perl or during user
> data entry), we can just always rely on
> 
>   gda_value_set_from_string (GdaValue *, const gchar *, GdaValueType);
> 
> In fact, this function won't need the third argument anymore.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how willing are we to change something this
> fundamental.  And though I can think of several of minor
> inconveniences of having NULL as a type, I haven't come up with a
> major one.  So, I won't be spending time pushing for this.

well, I think having the is_null field is also a good solution. Give it
a bit of more thinking, and you still think it's the best thing, we'll
go for it.

The only thing that worries me about this is the behavior change from
1.0 to 1.2 that this will impose.

cheers