Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: sad <sad@bankir.ru>
Organization: IT
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
Subject: Re: feature request ?
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:55:26 +0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
Cc: "Gregory S. Williamson" <gsw@globexplorer.com>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: 
 <71E37EF6B7DCC1499CEA0316A256832801057B7C@loki.wc.globexplorer.net>
	<200406241104.15265.sad@bankir.ru>
	<20040624062119.Q87012@megazone.bigpanda.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040624062119.Q87012@megazone.bigpanda.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200406241655.26065.sad@bankir.ru>

>  If you were to add a NULL block you'd have to deal with things
> like, if you only have a then and else, do you run the else on NULL or do
> you do nothing?  If you do nothing, what if you want the null and else to
> be the same, do you add another way to specify that?  If you do the else,
> then the else stops making sense since it's sometimes false and sometimes
> not true.

it is only syntax problem.
really we have more than one way to continue execution if one block is skip=
ped
so your are free to define IF's behavior any way, particularly the way it i=
s=20
defined now.

two-blocks IF is oviously enough to code ANY algorythm
but the three-blocks IF is more adequate to tri-valued BOOL