On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:09:08 -0600, Rich Shepard
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Rich Shepard wrote:
>> Any thoughts?
> NULL does the trick. After all, if the value is below detection
> limits or
> less than 1 the actual value is unknown.
Might you ever need to distinguish between something less than one
and something which was actually undetectably low? I don't like
losing information, personally.
Using NULL for both loses the distinction between them. If you'll
never need to distinguish them, why are there two valid NAN values
in the first place?
+1 503 841 5240
In response to
pdxpug by date
|Next:||From: Ewan, Michael||Date: 2010-04-20 17:38:10|
|Subject: Re: Entering '<1' and 'BDL'|
|Previous:||From: Rich Shepard||Date: 2010-04-20 02:09:08|
|Subject: Re: Entering '<1' and 'BDL' -- RESOLVED|