On 2016/03/16 11:53 AM, Bernard McNeill wrote: > Any particular reason why the shell '.import' command cannot interpret || > as a NULL for the field?
The reason the import mechanism doesn't cope with NULLs is not because it can't, but because it shouldn't - until the TEXT standard changes in this regard. > Does || have another use/interpretation? > > Just seems a shame that the standard bulk input mechanism cannot cope > directly with NULLs. You are looking for the fault in the wrong culprit. The Importer would be very able to cope with nulls, if you can find me a standard where TEXT imports are described to have a way of defining NULLs. There is no such TEXT standard currently to my knowledge (though I could be wrong), and as such, importing things that can't be there, is by definition not feasible. There is no way that I know of currently to specify in a text file: "Value here" | Value here | | (There isn't really a value here) | "Value here" that would be logically distinguishable from: Value here | Value here | "" | "(There isn't really a value here)" | Value here and certainly would NOT be equivalent to: "Value here" | Value here | NULL | NULL | "Value here" I know it looks like an easy adaptation (and probably is!), but perhaps best to be reminded that any special seemingly normal use-case isn't necessarily globally useful to everyone - this is why we have standards. Cheers, Ryan
