On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:38 PM Doug <dougf....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > You're twisting my point here. I obviously want the reverse,
> > I want the database types to "drive" the binding done. 1-to-1.
> > Because even if binding a different type would work, via SQLite's
> > own implicit conversion, I don't want that, because it's hiding a
> > bug in the code most likely instead. --DD
> Is the code inadvertently putting quotes (') around in integer value [...]?
I'm talking about "real" binding here:
https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/bind_blob.html
In C/C++, you could mess up your col indexes when binding, or bind incorrectly
for some other reason, and "strong static typing" is more likely to
find those, via
SQL failures, than SQLite's default flexible-typing, that accepts any
value in any typed column,
unless you have these explicit CHECK+typeof constraints. --DD
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
