On 3/4/06, Dave Burt <dave / burt.id.au> wrote:> 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.
I think that the risk is very high. As with JEG2, this would preventme from using KirbyBase were I to have something that could use it. Ithink that this is a fundamental change to the language and *not*desirable.
-austin--Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca