Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> Well "char" doesn't have quite the same semantics as CHAR(1). If that's the
>> consensus though then I can work on either fixing "char" semantics to match
>> CHAR(1) or adding a separate type instead.
> What semantics?  

The main bit that comes to mind is 32::CHAR(1) give you '3' but 32::"char"
gives you ' '.

Really it makes more sense if you think of "char" is a 1 byte integer type
with some extra text casts and operators to make C programmers happy, not a 1
byte character type.

  Gregory Stark

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to