The point isn't in the amount of coding but in the performance. It isn't required to build intermediate data structures.
2006/1/4, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2006-01-04, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's probably the same amount of coding either way: > > > > [hsql-esque example] > > > fetch sth > > h1 <- get sth "col1" > > h2 <- get sth "col2" > > func h1 h2 > > I should add that yet another option with HDBC is: > > l colname colmap = Map.lookup colname colmap >>= fromSql > > row <- fetchRowMap sth > h1 <- l "col1" row > h2 <- l "col2" row > func h1 h2 > > So I think you should be able to use HDBC as-is in that usage scenario > pretty easily. > > I could add a function like "l" to HDBC if people think it would be > generically useful. > > -- John > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell > _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
