1 18 19 20 21 22 385 Replies Latest reply: Aug 20, 2007 7:26 AM by Alessandro Rossi Go to original post
• ###### 285. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
I'm giving you 24 hours G R A T I S to make me F O O L !!!
I see no real need, that is the only thing you have managed to conclusively prove so far in this thread.
• ###### 286. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
Maybe we are both confused with the term "equivalence". I consider that "to
be equivalent" is not the same as "to be equal to" (operator "="). For that
reason, a better word than "equivalence" might be "analogy".
You are confused because you are obviously making up the meaning of words as you go along to suit your blinkered point of view.

Wouldn't your time be better spent finding a database you are capable of understanding and learning to use without whining and leave Oracle alone?
• ###### 287. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
...whereas "+" means "carry out a bitwise addition of these binary values"
Here appears to be a glitch...(physical level <> logical level).

I can perfectly realize and "see" analogy between arithmetic operation and concatenation operation (don't use "equivalence" since it appears to make confusion), and thus between the "+" and the "||" operators (the analogy in the sense of their meaning).

But it's not so important for our discussion. Maybe we see different pictures in our heads.

Albert
• ###### 288. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
I think you were given the proof you asked for but you claimed to have forgotten it less than four hours later, despite a reminder in the meantime.

Here is another reminder, hopefully you will be able to retain it a bit longer than a few hours this time.

Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
• ###### 289. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
I would kindly ask those who have difficulties in differentiating between their arses and heads and are missing the elementary home education and decency, such as obviously Mr/Mrs/Miss "3360", not to expand this thread with nonsenses and petties, since I am not willing to respond them.

Albert
• ###### 290. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
not to expand this thread with nonsenses and petties, since I am not willing
to respond them.
Maybe if everyone simply responds with a link to the post with the proof that Albert is trying to forget and ignore he will either have to acknowledge it or go away.
those who have difficulties in differentiating between their arses and heads
You obviously have no trouble making the differentiation as you have one in the other.
• ###### 291. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
It's arses and elbows. You can't even get that right.

I believe Scott already gave you a proof of whatever it was you were on about in this post:
Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
• ###### 292. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
Personally, I don't know who "Flying Spoon" is...

However, you have already been disproved. (maybe you are the one Flying over the thread, not reading properly)
• ###### 293. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
There is a difference between making an analogy in your head, and there being a formal equivalence.

It seems to only similarity between "+" arithemtic operator and "||" concatenation operator is in the syntax.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the logical-physical abstraction.

It seems to me that you have too many words and not enough comprehension of any of them.
• ###### 294. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
I'm giving you 24 hours G R A T I S to make me F O O L !!!
I don't think there's any need for that. Not just that it's rude, but you've done a good enough job of making yourself a FOOL as it is.
I can perfectly realize and "see" analogy between arithmetic
operation and concatenation operation (don't use "equivalence"
since it appears to make confusion), and thus between the "+"
and the "||" operators (the analogy in the sense of their
meaning).
Ok, let's leave the nitty gritty out of it.
"||" means "append/concatenate strings"

There's no equivalence, no analogy, no anything that is the same between them. They are both different, serve different purposes and work on different datatypes. You just can't make any comparison between them both unless you've lost your brain. It would be like saying a banana has an analogy with a chair because I can sit on both, however the chair is really for sitting on, whilst the banana should really be eaten.

Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
• ###### 295. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
It's arses and
elbows. You can't even get that right.
No, no - I insist on "arses and heads"

Cheers
• ###### 296. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
Like the NULLS, you can insist all you like. You're still wrong.

:oP
• ###### 297. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
> I can perfectly realize and "see" analogy between arithmetic operation and concatenation operation.
<snipped>
Maybe we see different pictures in our heads.

It is like you you seeing a mental picture of Jenna Jameson and describing to the forum the difference between a zero length bikini and a no (null) bikini that she is/is not wearing.

Why not rather just enjoy the view than argue the nature of the "no-bikini"?
• ###### 298. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
Call me old-fashioned but I prefer a zero-size bikini. I like to leave something to the imagination.
• ###### 299. Re: Treatment of zero-length strings as NULLs?
See William, it was right thing I used "arses and heads". If I used "arses and elbows", the "3360" would still be buzzing. In this way he recognized himself immediatelly.
I believe Scott already gave you a proof of whatever
it was you were on about in this post: