John Maenpaa wrote: > The 1992 draft SQL standard (sorry, all I have handy at the moment) > says "The <datetime field>s other than SECOND contain non-negative > integer values, constrained by the natural rules for dates using the > Gregorian calendar." This leaves it up to the Gregorian calendar, > which doesn't have a year zero, much less month zero and day zero as > far as I can tell. The ISO 8601 standard allows zero and negative year > values to represent BC dates, but still requires non-zero month and > day values. I've been mostly a DB2 user for 20 years or so, but I > believe that most RDBMS implementations follow the standard and > disallow 0000-00-00 as an invalid date.
I would argue this is not an issue of "most" or even "standard" -- most code on the planet is probably written with camelCase names -- which doesn't seem to have much impact on Rails' opinion. This is a simple case of having the database adaptor allow what the database itself considers legal. Not only legal, but Rails is preventing the db from using its own default behavior. It doesn't matter if the DB2, Oracle or Sybase worlds think its dumb. Its an adaptor for MySQL. -- gw -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
