On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:09:43 +0100 Neil Morgenstern <neil.morgenstern.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
NM> I don't think you can just rip it out of the code because people may well NM> be using code relying on it being there. It is defined in a private soci-backend.h header, is it really a serious concern that some code using undocumented symbols from this header might be broken? Moreover, how exactly would it be used anyhow? I don't see any non-artificial way to make use of it outside SOCI, do you? IMHO the only thing that matters is that the code using parameters of all primitive types (including unsigned ones) should continue to work and this would be the case. NM> I do remember wishing that in parts the code was less fragile on type and NM> we had to modify our code to make it so - actually most of the code was NM> using long as the integral type so we essentially allowed it for any NM> integral value that could convert to long without overflow. Well, unsigned long could be converted to long, as I wrote. IMO it's much better to represent it in the same way as long at the database level instead of using int64 for it. Anyhow, please let me know how would any existing code be broken by the proposed change. TIA, VZ
pgpoWqpiW8flG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________ Soci-users mailing list Soci-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
