On 1/21/03 10:52 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, John Siracusa wrote:
>> On 1/21/03 3:38 AM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>>> FWIW *if* there should be a default date format for DBI, *please* make it
>>> universal: YYYYMMDD and not MMDDYYYY or MM/DD/YYYY, because you have no idea
>>> how much irritation this arouses in European countries.
>> 
>> Like I said:
>> 
>>> On 1/20/03 11:34 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
>>>> It would be nice if we had a "canonical" date/time representation.  That's
>>>> part of what the new DateTime modules being discussed on the
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list hope to deliver.
>> 
>> I don't think we'll have a standardized "interchange format" for dates
>> until/unless the new DateTime project matures.  But such a thing is not
>> required for database-independent code, provided you're not trying to move
>> data from one database to another.  All that's required by my proposal is
>> that each DBD's formatter be able to read whatever is returned from its own
>> parser:
> 
> Does this cover DBD's (like mine) that don't support *any* data types?

Sure.  If you really make no distinctions about data types, then you'd
probably just make the methods no-op pass-throughs for the data.

-John

Reply via email to