Stuart McLachlan
stuart at lexacorp.com.pg
Thu May 21 17:40:52 CDT 2009
Here, Here! The yes/No field in Access is very badly designed. No field type sould be non-Nullable in any well designed DBMS. You can define a Yes/No field as Not Required and/or give it a Default Value of Null, but it can still only hold 0 or -1 You are far better off storing Yes/NO values as a Nullable Byte/Integer/Long and using a tri- State checkbox on it (Incidentally, how do they store -1 in a single bit? and why does changing a Yes/NO to a Byte convert a Yes values to 255? <g>) -- Stuart On 21 May 2009 at 17:15, Arthur Fuller wrote: > That's a good approach, David. The rest of this thread really causes skin > rash due to its misunderstanding of the purpose of NULL values. NULL is a > valid value. I've said this before and I'm saying it again. Force a NULL > value to anything else (which includes defaulting a column to some value) is > IMO a fundamental design error, indicative of one of two problems: > > 1. you don't understand the data domain > 2. the domain itself is incoherent. > > My $.02. > Arthur > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com