[DB-SIG] dBase III and VFP tables

Ethan Furman ethan at stoneleaf.us
Wed Jul 20 17:58:49 CEST 2011

Carl Karsten wrote:
> I would say supporting Empty is a backwards compatibility thing: If
> there was code that relied on it, then you should continue to support
> it.
> When I was using VFP I never needed both values.
> My guess is the custom objects will cause problems and solve none.

Okay, I think what I'll do is keep it simple by default: None will be 
returned both for Empty and Null, and if None is assigned to a field it 
will be written as either Empty, or Null if that field is Nullable. 
I'll keep the custom objects around and provide a mechanism to specify 
which objects to return based on field type/null status, so if anyone 
wants, for example, Decimals instead of floats they can have them, or 
Empty/Null objects they can have those too.

Seem reasonable?


More information about the DB-SIG mailing list