Re: Type BOOLEAN

Edi Weitz <[email protected]> Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:20:43 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.lisp.clsql.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:14:39 -0600, Kevin Rosenberg <kevin-HJRc7zDS/[email protected]> wrote:

> Sure, that's fine. Would you want it to follow individual backend
> semantics for BOOLEAN? For example, mysql considers BOOLEAN to be
> synonym for TINYINT. Also, ODBC doesn't have a BOOLEAN type and
> various ODBC drivers handle boolean differently.
>
> CLSQL has a fair bit of code so that a OO :type boolean slot has the
> same semantics as a native SQL BOOLEAN column. Do you need such
> compatibility with GENERALIZED-BOOLEAN or just a CHAR(1) column with
> 't' or 'f' stored?

Oops, I didn't expect it to be that complicated, I mostly use
PostgreSQL. Yes, if I were to decide I'd be happy if
GENERALIZED-BOOLEAN were treated like BOOLEAN is treated now. I
usually like it if the data Lisp writes to the SQL database is
accessible by other languages without the need for complicated
translations.

Thanks for your help,
Edi.