| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Numeric with '-' |
| Date: | 2000-02-23 13:00:16 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10002231355070.29518-100000@Delfin.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Au contraire. The real issue here is how to decide which numeric type
> to use for an undecorated but numeric-looking literal token. I don't
You lost me. How does that relate to the character types? You are not
suggesting that '123.456' should be considered a number? It seems pretty
clear to me that anything of the form [0-9]+ is an integer, something with
an 'e' in it is a float, and something with only digits and decimal points
is numeric. If passing around an 'numeric' object is too expensive, keep
it as a string for a while longer. As you did.
> think that's a non-mainstream problem, and I definitely don't think
> that telling the odd-datatype crowd to take a hike will help fix it.
It remains to be shown how big that "hike", if at all existent, would be
...
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-23 13:20:44 | GNU make (Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Patch for more readable parse error messages) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-23 12:54:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ? |