On 06/03/2012 16:01, Leyne, Sean wrote:
> This is why BroadView hasn't made the move from Dialect 1.  The numeric rules 
> imposed by Dialect 3 would have required a huge amount of re-coding and 
> testing to ensure that our calculations/reports generated the expected 
> results.
>
> BTW, unless I have missed something, there is no posting which has said that 
> Dialect 1 needs to be eliminated in order for the BLR version to be 
> increased.  So, changing the BLR levels has no dependencies on the question 
> of on-going support for Dialect 1.  The subject of dialects came up due to a 
> question from Alex about whether the support for the old BLR versions was 
> necessary for Dialect 1.
>
>
> As for Dialect 1, it is my opinion that the Dialect 3 intermediate numeric 
> rules are half-baked (at best) and that until such time as they have been 
> have been made intelligent that support for Dialect 1 needs to be maintained 
> (do I hear a Dialect 4?  == Dialect 1 math rules, plus 'new' Boolean, Date, 
> Time, Timestamp and INT64 datatypes).
>
>
I think the solution (not hacks with dialects) to this problem is not 
difficult.

Firebird don't need to change the way it does numeric/decimal 
arithmetics and introduce another dialect leaving current and previous 
one for decades. Firebird is right on the way it does.

So, add a new datatype NUMBER(x, y) who does BCD arithmetics like it's 
done in Oracle.

No secret then. Everybody would be pleased without these dialect hacks 
which make a single thing to act in different ways.


Adriano


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel

Reply via email to