RE: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10

2007-01-25 Thread James Dennett
> -Original Message- > From: Joe Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:04 PM > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org > Subject: RE: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10 > > --- James Dennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10

2007-01-24 Thread Joe Wilson
--- James Dennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Wilson wrote: > > The proposed expression ((sqlite3_destructor_type)-1) is equivalent to > > ((void(*)(void *))-1). They are interchangable. > > Not in C++. The difference being linkage; with the typedef declared in > an extern "C" block, the

RE: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10

2007-01-23 Thread James Dennett
> -Original Message- > From: Joe Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 5:20 PM > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org > Subject: RE: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10 > > --- James Dennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -

RE: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10

2007-01-22 Thread Joe Wilson
--- James Dennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Joe Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10 > [snip] > > > > I don't know if this is the right place to post sug

Re: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10

2007-01-21 Thread Joe Wilson
> >> Having SQLITE_TRANSIENT point to a real function is perhaps a > >> good idea. The problem is such a change would break backwards > >> compatibility of the API. Somebody who compiled against an > >> older SQLite and who drops in a newer DLL with this change will > >> find that their code no

Re: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10

2007-01-21 Thread Florian Weimer
> Having SQLITE_TRANSIENT point to a real function is perhaps a > good idea. The problem is such a change would break backwards > compatibility of the API. Somebody who compiled against an > older SQLite and who drops in a newer DLL with this change will > find that their code no longer works.

Re: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10

2007-01-20 Thread Joe Wilson
> On a related but separate note, is there any standard that guarantees > that casting -1 to a function pointer type is reasonably portable? This idiom is used widely enough to overload an argument so that it can contain either a valid pointer, or convey a non-pointer state. Take

Re: [sqlite] Fix for sqlite3.h in version 3.3.10

2007-01-20 Thread drh
"James Dennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On a related but separate note, is there any standard that guarantees > that casting -1 to a function pointer type is reasonably portable? My > experience is that it doesn't cause problems, but certainly it's not > portable C or C++ from the