[DB-SIG] dBase III and VFP tables

Carl Karsten 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
>> 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?

Yep.

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 :)

-- 
Carl K


More information about the DB-SIG mailing list