"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> Don't know how or if we want to proceed with a bare "NULL" clause.
> Should we bother with a special case of _only_ NULL in a
> declaration, as in Bruce's patch?
My patch is clearly wrong. The NULL should be parallel to NOT NULL,
and ought just to be ignored (since NULL is the default). I think
it's worth doing (as the book says, NULL may not be the default on
your system, and anyway, it's always better to specify just for
clarity).
I think explicitly specifying NULL is probably good practice, so it
should be supported.