Jamey Cribbs wrote:
> What has been kicked around when this question has come up before is for 
> me to create something like a NULL class and use this to designate a null 
> value in the database, instead of using nil.  This would take care of 
> having to override NilClass#method_missing.  It would bring up a few other 
> problems, namely, what if someone wants to store the string value NULL in 
> a field.  But I imagine these could be overcome.

If you define a new NULL class, you have the problem of it being true in 
conditionals. I think it would be difficult to make it work intuitively, and 
impossible to make it as well as the nil.method_missing hack works.

James Edward Gray II wrote:
> This has been a popular discussion lately, but I just don't think  loading 
> a database library should fundamentally change the language.

As good a point as that is, I think this is KirbyBase's best option. I think 
the risk of nil.method_missing returning nil breaking something is low, as 
has been argued in the debates on this list (Guy Decoux?). If it did, 
wouldn't we have heard about it by now?

It does probably demand a prominent warning in the README.

Cheers,
Dave