I think it'd break a huge amount of scripts, which is why I didn't even do it in the 3.0->4.0 move. Zeev At 00:55 19/07/2001, Cynic wrote: >Hi Zeev, > >thanks for the prompt reply. I don't think another function >is necessary if this gets changed in 4.1. what do you think? >could you add this to the 4.1 TODO list? > >At 23:36 7/18/2001, Zeev Suraski wrote the following: >-------------------------------------------------------------- > >No good reason for that. When I wanted to change that, it was already > too late in the game. > >It'd probably make good sense to add a mysql_get_field_name_ex() which > returns a more accurate value. > > > >Zeev > > > >At 00:37 19/07/2001, Cynic wrote: > >>Hi there, > >> > >>could anyone tell me what is the reasoning behind the constraints > >>on the values returned by php_mysql_get_field_name()? I. e.: > >> > >>... > >>1737 case FIELD_TYPE_SHORT: > >>1738 case FIELD_TYPE_LONG: > >>1739 case FIELD_TYPE_LONGLONG: > >>1740 case FIELD_TYPE_INT24: > >>1741 return "int"; > >>1742 break; > >>1743 case FIELD_TYPE_FLOAT: > >>1744 case FIELD_TYPE_DOUBLE: > >>1745 case FIELD_TYPE_DECIMAL: > >>1746 return "real"; > >>1747 break; > >>... > >> > >>why doesn't it return "short", "longlong", "double" etc. i. e. the > >>real value? > >> > >>This has been so since php_mysql.c v1.1 (2yrs, Zeev), so there must be > >>a good reason behind this, but I just see it. anyone care to enlighten > >>me? > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >------------- >And the eyes of them both were opened and they saw that their files >were world readable and writable, so they chmoded 600 their files. > - Book of Installation chapt 3 sec 7 -- Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO & co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/ -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
