On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:20, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Carsten Haese wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:24, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> I've found the qmark style to be sufficient for everything > > > > I agree. Considering that many modules already support qmark, and those > > that currently use 'format'/'pyformat' would have to move to something > > else if these are dropped, I'd like to suggest that supporting 'qmark' > > style should become a required feature. Modules would be free to also > > implement 'named' and/or 'numeric', but supporting 'qmark' should be > > mandatory. > > I'm not sure whether that's easily possible for database modules > which rely on different marker mechanisms, e.g. some modules > probably use the implicit type information in the pyformat style > to find out which method to use for binding variables.
I don't follow. I thought we're voting on dropping 'pyformat' as a parameter style. Also, how does pyformat contain implicit type information? -Carsten _______________________________________________ DB-SIG maillist - DB-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/db-sig
