Gregory Stark wrote: > > 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.
One very nifty trick would be to fix "char" to act as CHAR(), and map CHAR(1) automatically to "char". -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
