atw: Is "non-null" an acceptable term?

> Hi all
> 
> Yesterday when we were reviewing a document, we needed to describe
> values-which-are-not-null - and I facetiously (so unlike me, I know!)
> scribbled down "unnull" (it has a nice symmetry, don't you think?).
> 
> When I made the change, I said "non-null values". I think this is an
> acceptable term. Unfortunately, "unnull" has hunted me down and bitten
> me, because the others, knowing I was joking with "unnull" are now
> confusing the two terms, and think "non-null" is also a joke. The
> alternative is the longer "values which are not null".
> 
> It's a small thing, but I'd prefer not to write a whole sentence when
> a single, unambiguous word will do the same job. What do you lot
> think? Is non-null actually a valid choice? (Could I possibly be
> wrong?) Is there a better option? Ultimately, for this particular
> document, it's not worth wrangling over, and I will use whichever term
> causes the least trouble (in terms of coming back interminably for
> changes). But I'm interested in your thoughts...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Elizabeth Fullerton
> Business Solutions Architect
> Infosys Australia
> Tel: +61 3 9911 3529
> Fax: +61 3 9911 3407
> www.infosys.com
> Powered by Intellect
>                  Driven by values
> 
> 
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: