top | item 42652268 (no title) gxt | 1 year ago This has always made queries unpredictable in many scenarios and it should be a feature to turn nulls off entirely and swap them out with Option<T> instead. discuss order hn newest solumunus|1 year ago How would you handle unmatched outer joins? benzayb|1 year ago By having a default value (non-null) for each declared type of those columns.Or, the user must define a default value in the query itself.Yes, tedious; but, precise and forces the programmer to really prepare for the "unknown" scenario. masklinn|1 year ago a left outer join b yields tuples of (A, Option<B>), a full outer join b yields tuples of (Option<A>, Option<B>)
solumunus|1 year ago How would you handle unmatched outer joins? benzayb|1 year ago By having a default value (non-null) for each declared type of those columns.Or, the user must define a default value in the query itself.Yes, tedious; but, precise and forces the programmer to really prepare for the "unknown" scenario. masklinn|1 year ago a left outer join b yields tuples of (A, Option<B>), a full outer join b yields tuples of (Option<A>, Option<B>)
benzayb|1 year ago By having a default value (non-null) for each declared type of those columns.Or, the user must define a default value in the query itself.Yes, tedious; but, precise and forces the programmer to really prepare for the "unknown" scenario.
masklinn|1 year ago a left outer join b yields tuples of (A, Option<B>), a full outer join b yields tuples of (Option<A>, Option<B>)
solumunus|1 year ago
benzayb|1 year ago
Or, the user must define a default value in the query itself.
Yes, tedious; but, precise and forces the programmer to really prepare for the "unknown" scenario.
masklinn|1 year ago