emperor: (Default)
emperor ([personal profile] emperor) wrote2009-09-09 03:05 pm
Entry tags:

Yes/No/Tickybox

Since SQL has not been my friend today...

[Poll #1455301]
toothycat: (Default)

[personal profile] toothycat 2009-09-09 02:09 pm (UTC)(link)

[identity profile] aardvark179.livejournal.com 2009-09-09 02:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Unknown

[identity profile] aardvark179.livejournal.com 2009-09-09 02:13 pm (UTC)(link)
I hate it when it comes to predicate optimisation, and bug reports from people who don't love it.

[identity profile] beckyc.livejournal.com 2009-09-09 02:40 pm (UTC)(link)
I boggled when I first was doing excel macros and discovered that there were the visibility options visible, hidden and very hidden.

[identity profile] didiusjulianus.livejournal.com 2009-09-09 04:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Any kind of logic is all right with me, it's things completely lacking in logic that I'm not generally so keen on :)

[identity profile] mhoulden.livejournal.com 2009-09-09 09:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Of course the only sensible answer is yes and no. There are many times when I've thought SQL should have a MAYBE operator to go with LIKE and SOUNDEX, but I keep wanting to SELECT UNTO things.

[identity profile] queex.livejournal.com 2009-09-11 12:22 pm (UTC)(link)
I meant to say- if you think SQL is bad, R uses an inconsistent ternary logic model. Witness:

> NA & TRUE
[1] NA
> tmp <- c(1,2,3,NA)
> tmp>=3
[1] FALSE FALSE TRUE NA
> tmp[tmp>=3]
[1] 3 NA

Yes, that's right, the array selection syntax treats NA as TRUE.