> I can't confirm that 100% off the top of my head but I'm uncoordinated
> enough to repeatedly confuse the bind and column value API calls and use
> 0-based indices for both and haven't noticed any really untoward behaviour
> (beyond my code not working and requiring fixing).
I know the feeling,
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Paolo Bolzoni
wrote:
>> I can't confirm that 100% off the top of my head but I'm uncoordinated
>> enough to repeatedly confuse the bind and column value API calls and use
>> 0-based indices for both and haven't noticed any really untoward behaviour
>> (beyond my
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 at 03:01 Simon Slavin wrote:
>
> On 2 Mar 2015, at 12:23am, Jay Kreibich wrote:
>
> > Every database I?ve every used starts SQL parameter indexes from 1. I?m
> not sure it is part of the SQL standard, but it is more or less the defacto
> standard of SQL APIs, and might be
On 2015-03-02 04:51 PM, Paolo Bolzoni wrote:
> I kinda get your point, but still we are speaking of the C interface
> all the time. Sure in other contexts, like the TCL/SQL, the indexes
> start from 1. However the bind and the column function are both in the
> C interface.
It's when the C
Valodia valodia
On 2 Mar 2015, at 12:23am, Jay Kreibich wrote:
> Every database I?ve every used starts SQL parameter indexes from 1. I?m not
> sure it is part of the SQL standard, but it is more or less the defacto
> standard of SQL APIs, and might be considered part of the SQL language.
I hope the SQLite
I kinda get your point, but still we are speaking of the C interface
all the time. Sure in other contexts, like the TCL/SQL, the indexes
start from 1. However the bind and the column function are both in the
C interface.
Oh, well... I just have to wrap my mind around it. Definitely not a
real
On Mar 2, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Paolo Bolzoni
wrote:
> I kinda get your point, but still we are speaking of the C interface
> all the time.
Not exactly. SQL parameters are defined in SQL, and they?re part of the SQL
language. The parameter placement (and from that, their indexing and binding)
On 3/2/2015 9:51 AM, Paolo Bolzoni wrote:
> I kinda get your point, but still we are speaking of the C interface
> all the time. Sure in other contexts, like the TCL/SQL, the indexes
> start from 1. However the bind and the column function are both in the
> C interface.
Not quite. There's ?N
On 3/1/15, Paolo Bolzoni wrote:
> Dear everyone,
>
> I find strange and confusing that bind indexes start from 1 (docs in
> [1]) and instead column indexes start from 0 (doc in [2]). Is there
> any technical reason or it is just an unlucky legacy?
Seems like there was a reason for this, 11 years
On 2015-03-01 04:41 PM, Paolo Bolzoni wrote:
> Dear everyone,
>
> I find strange and confusing that bind indexes start from 1 (docs in
> [1]) and instead column indexes start from 0 (doc in [2]). Is there
> any technical reason or it is just an unlucky legacy?
I'm going to venture a guess here
On Mar 1, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 3/1/15, Paolo Bolzoni wrote:
>> Dear everyone,
>>
>> I find strange and confusing that bind indexes start from 1 (docs in
>> [1]) and instead column indexes start from 0 (doc in [2]). Is there
>> any technical reason or it is just an
Dear everyone,
I find strange and confusing that bind indexes start from 1 (docs in
[1]) and instead column indexes start from 0 (doc in [2]). Is there
any technical reason or it is just an unlucky legacy?
Yours faithfully,
Paolo
[1] https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/bind_blob.html
[2]
13 matches
Mail list logo
