I can give it a try, but I'm not familiar with lex and yacc so I can't
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Meskes" <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: "Nicolas Bazin" <nbazin(at)ingenico(dot)com(dot)au>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Additional fixes to ecpg - please apply patch
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 12:41:33PM +1100, Nicolas Bazin wrote:
> > It works except that you overwrote a previous patch I submitted that was
already applied (see mail joined).
> I'm sorry for that. Since I thought cvs would merge the changes I didn't
> > Sorry for sending you a diff in the wrong order.
> No problem.
> > Also I though the type definition syntax could be enhanced. Instaead of
> > ...
> > Both syntax can be maintained for compatibility of existing
> > application, but I find the second one easier to maintain because
> > there is no code duplication.Can you do it ? Nicolas
> Yes, you are right. The first should be kept for compatibility, but the
> second i seasier to use. I will ad this to my todo list. But I have no
> idea at all, when I will find time to implement it. So, if you can send
> patches, they are more than welcome.
> Michael Meskes
> Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
> Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
In response to
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Mars T||Date: 2002-03-12 17:30:02|
|Subject: INSERTing and UPDATEing records with libpq|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-03-11 17:01:25|
|Subject: Re: NEWBIE ant build.xml FAILED !!|