Re: Bug in sql/oodml.lisp

I think your argument is compelling enough to warrant implementation.

However, I think that there probably needs to be a greater refactoring 
of print related bindings when writing database strings.  Currently 
these bindings are in one small branch of printing for the database, 
when they should probably wrap all database printing functions.

As such I will work on that eventually, but for now, I think we are good 
enough for a minor point release.  That way Quicklisp users can 
eventually benefit from the bugfixes and improvements of the last 
quarter.  Kevin do you have an estimate on when that might occur?

Cheers and Thanks for the input,
Russ Tyndall
Acceleration.net


On 02/25/2014 02:43 PM, Scott L. Burson wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:04:34 -0500
>> From: Russ Tyndall <[email protected]>
>>
>> I am hesitant to set *print-base* as it would effectively prevent
>> printing numbers in different base systems to the database. Probably not
>> a big deal, but it would seem like something you might want if you
>> already have your system set to interact in another base.
> I am strongly of the opinion that you should also bind *print-base*.
> I sometimes set it to 16. in the REPL for interactive purposes; I
> would never want this to affect the internals of CLSQL.
>
> If you really think someone might want to write numbers to the
> database in some other base, you could introduce
> clsql:*database-print-base* or some such and bind *print-base* to that
> instead of to a constant 10.  But I'll wager no one would ever use
> this feature.
>
> -- Scott
> _______________________________________________
> CLSQL mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.b9.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clsql