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]

  + 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

Reply via email to