| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | sad <sad(at)bankir(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: casting BOOL to somthng |
| Date: | 2004-09-01 05:24:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20040831222407.W57281@megazone.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, sad wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:49, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 2004, at 8:24 PM, sad wrote:
> > > and i am still desire to know _WHY_ there are no predefined cast for
> > > BOOL ?
> > > and at the same time there are predefined casts for INT and FLOAT......
> >
> > I think the main reason is what is the proper textual representation of
> > BOOLEAN? True, PostgreSQL returns 't' as a representation for the
> > BOOLEAN value TRUE, but some people might want it to return 'TRUE' or
> > 'true' or other representations. Picking one is perhaps arbitrary.
>
> There are many (infinite number) of INT representations,
> "Picking one is perhaps arbitrary." But you poke one and using it.
There's a fairly accepted convention for integer representations.
There's no such convention for boolean representations.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | sad | 2004-09-01 05:41:54 | Re: casting BOOL to somthng |
| Previous Message | sad | 2004-09-01 04:29:00 | Re: casting BOOL to somthng |