Custom Comparators for the join.We can detect them not being of the same type and coerce them to the bigger type
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM, webpaul <[email protected]> wrote: > > How are you thinking of doing it? Casting up should always be safe, so > you could always cast any numeric type to double or something like > that in order to compare. That way you could compare 1 with 1.00 also. > Not sure if that is a perf problem or not though. > > On Feb 22, 11:33 am, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Simone Busoli <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Actually, when you're doing a join it would be a very cool feature to > have. > > > I spent quite some time wondering why the rows didn't join correctly, > and it > > > was because the field on which it was performing the join was an > integer on > > > one side and a byte on the other. So far, the solution has been to > write > > > tests which ensure that the two sides of the join have the same field > types, > > > but I would like to solve it at the RhinoETL level. > > > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 03:54, webpaul <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Ok, mission accomplished then - Makes sense once you think about it. I > > >> certainly don't have any burning need for it to work and the easy work > > >> around is to cast one of the items as they are read in if it becomes > > >> an issue so I think it's fine. Just wanted to check if that was a > > >> desired thing or not. > > > > >> On Feb 21, 10:43 am, Simone Busoli <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > That was to point out the subtlety in the .net fx. I already > discussed > > >> it, > > >> > please lookup "row equality" on the mailing list. I think this can > be > > >> > addressed in several ways, but didn't take the time to do it yet. > > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 17:13, webpaul <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > I looked at some recent changes and one of them was for checking > row > > >> > > equality. I noticed there was a specific test for an (int)1 not > being > > >> > > equal to a (byte)1 - is that the desired behavior or was the test > put > > >> > > in there just to demonstrate that subtlety? I did a little test > and > > >> > > was surprised to find the below .NET framework behavior, I would > have > > >> > > thought they would be equal: > > > > >> > > object a = (int)1; > > >> > > object b = (byte)1; > > > > >> > > Assert.IsFalse(a.Equals(b)); > > > > >> > > I'm guessing the framework just returns false if the types are > > >> > > different in the Equals implementation. > > > > >> > > So I understand why the test behaves how it does, just curious if > that > > >> > > is the desired effect or just due to the above and you wanted it > to be > > >> > > clear.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
