[DB-SIG] dBase III and VFP tables
carl at personnelware.com
Wed Jul 20 17:47:59 CEST 2011
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> 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
>> 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?
I was kinda thinking of keeping the empty-able objects around. I
hate the idea of trying to document them; I hardly like trying to
keep track of how VFP handles them :)
More information about the DB-SIG