Re: [SQLObject] Default Behaviour when notNull == False

[Brad B. <br...@bb...>]

On 05/01/03 09:29, Luke Opperman wrote:
> 
> > To me:
> >
> >     default=None
> >
> > reads essentially "if no value is specified, this column has no
> > value", which is redundant. I think it would be reasonable for
> > SQLObject to internalize the default=None
> 
> To me, "None is NULL" for SQLObject, so it reads "if no value is
> specified, this column is NULL".  notNull=False is still independent

Yes, but "NULL" is just computerese for "no value". :)

> of this: I take default to mean "you don't need to be explicit in
> setting this field, we have a default". You could easily have a field
> that CAN have a NULL (notNull=False), but that you still want people
> to explicitly declare. In my mind.

And "allowed to be null" is computerese for "allowed to have no
value". "Allowed to have no value, except you have to specify some
default value" doesn't make sense, in my mind. What's the point of
allowing something to have no value, but forcing you to specify a
value (even if just as a default)?

-- 
Brad Bollenbach
BBnet.ca