Re: For review: VALUES

On 2012-05-22, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> On 22/05/12 14:50, Gregory Williams wrote:
>> On May 22, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>> 
>>> I've only read 10.2, but it seems good to me.
>>> 
>>> The only thing I wonder about is if UNDEF would be better as UNBOUND, to match BOUND(). It's more characters, but might be more consistent?
>> 
>> I thought the same thing, but am getting more and more reluctant to change things that we've had around for a long time…
>> 
>> .greg
>> 
> 
> I have a mild preference for UNDEF - it's talking about the value.
> 
> Values aren't "bound" - variables are.  Granted it is making a binding for a variable but the syntax is an aligned list of values.

I see the logic, just it loses the commonality with the associated function. Not a big deal.

For e.g. Perl has an undef symbol, but the associated function is called defined().

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ

Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:11:47 UTC