On 2017/02/10 8:15 PM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com> wrote: I'm sure DRH could probably add it in his sleep in [1] , around the switch line 236 with a new flag, with room to spare in et_info.flags to store it, and with the actual formatting code in less than 20 lines, in that 1099 line file. So +2% in that one file which is a tiny subset (< 1%) of 100K+ lines of the amalgamation. --DD
I don't think this line of argument is valid - stuff shouldn't be done because their bloat level is minimal or that they will be easy to do - however, I do agree with the idea, so +1 for the suggestion.
And yes - I've seen all the arguments about SQL not having a formatting responsibility (with which I agree) but there is nothing wrong with rolling a stone out of the way with a simple addition - and as was mentioned before, there already /IS/ a printf() function in the SQL with the sole purpose of formatting stuff, so the addition does qualify as "simple". It seems silly to me to bang on about SQL having no formatting jurisdiction when it's already there - all that was asked is making it a very small bit more functional with an enhancement many might use.
That said, please avoid ANY locale nonsense - it's evil. /2c Ryan _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
