I'm sorry. Me and Darren are having this conversation on two separate
lists (this one and TTM) that we are both part of, but have a
substantially different subscriber base. This response was supposed to
have gone to TTM.
Lyle
On 30/12/2012 16:45, Lyle wrote:
On 30/12/2012 04:19, Darren Duncan wrote:
Yes, that is useful.
I think you should add a column such that your leftmost column is
some canonical type name you made for the report, and have the SQL
standard name(s) in a separate column like the ODBC standard names are.
This works best when no one list is a superset of the others, which
is surely the case, then you don't have say the confusion about which
things in the first column are SQL standard actual vs some
placeholder you added from ODBC/etc.
As far as I understand thus far, the ODBC and SQL standard names are
the same for all those types with codes >= 1. Although I agree having
some distinction between them other than the numbers would be useful.
The column marked ODBC is SQL Server, it's just using the ODBC driver,
I'll need to correct that in the next version to make it more clear.
I'm not sure what types names I could create in a new left column that
wouldn't match the current left column. I'm open to suggestions if you
want to send me some ideas.
Lyle
