|From:||Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|To:||Nicolas Bazin <nbazin(at)ingenico(dot)com(dot)au>|
|Subject:||Re: Subject: Re: Additional fixes to ecpg - please apply patch|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
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.
> Also I though the type definition syntax could be enhanced. Instaead of defining
> 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.
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
|Next Message||Peter Eisentraut||2002-03-11 17:01:25||Re: NEWBIE ant build.xml FAILED !!|
|Previous Message||Nicolas Bazin||2002-03-11 01:41:33||Re: Additional fixes to ecpg - please apply patch|