Re: boolean states

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Jack Douglas
<jack(at)douglastechnology(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
>        The boolean type can have one of only two states: "true" or "false".
> A third state, "unknown", is represented by the SQL null value.
>
> This sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I'm not crazy about that paragraph's confusion between two and three
states either, but..

> Perhaps that sentence should be changed
> to:
>
>        The boolean type can have one of three states: "true" or "false" and
> "unknown". The third state, "unknown", is represented by the SQL null value.
> or:
>
>        The boolean type can have one of three states: "true" or "false" and
> null. The third state, null, represents the logical value "unknown".

I don't think either of these suggested replacements are any better.
First, a boolean column can be declared NOT NULL. Second, I don't like
the idea of misleading people into thinking that NULL is on equal
footing with the other values of a given datatype, particularly as
your first alternative implies.

I'd vote for just ripping out the:
| A third state, "unknown", is represented by the SQL null value.

sentence entirely. I see no reason why NULL should be talked about in
particular on the page about boolean data types; there are many data
types, any of which might be NULL.

I almost think it would be worthwhile to have a section in the docs on
the (counterintuitive) behaviors of NULL, such as this great post:
<http://thoughts.j-davis.com/2009/08/02/what-is-the-deal-with-nulls/>
-- or maybe just a link to that page.

Josh