Erik Pearson erik@REDACTED
Sat Oct 27 01:02:10 CEST 2001

That is a good idea. However, in this case I'm anticipating the need to do 
pattern matching on multiple fields, and being able to retrieve records in 
a single chunk is quite nice. Also, each field would require extra storage 
for the "fieldname", no?

Interestingly, records do support the concept of "undefined" ...


--On Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:09 AM +0200 Håkan Stenholm 
<hokan.stenholm@REDACTED> wrote:

> If the table is truely spares you could allways  enter each field as a
> single database element and use the original 'table key + fieldname' as
> the key for this 'single field' database. This would avoid the need to
> use any kind of 'nil' value alltogether.

Erik Pearson
@ Adaptations
email     : erik@REDACTED
voice/fax : +1 510 527 5437
text page : page.erik@REDACTED

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list