> On Oct 8, 2019, at 5:34 AM, Jose Isaias Cabrera <jic...@outlook.com> wrote: > > No, that is not what I was trying to say or ask. Not even close. What I was > trying to say, and most of you missed it was, that if I give date a date > format, and I also provide the format of how that date is to be understood, > ie....
Sorry for misunderstanding. But I think this goes against SQLite’s design goal of simplicity. Date-time formatting is complicated, so this would add measurably to the library’s footprint*, which would be a problem for using it in embedded systems, which would require yet another compile-time configuration flag to enable/disable it, which would complicate testing... etc. I think the idea of a semi-official ”SQLite++” has been floated here before: a distro with lots of extensions and a more powerful CLI. I like that idea. —Jens * Yes, strptime/strftime are in the standard library. But in an embedded system that library is statically linked into your binary (there is no OS), so if those functions are not dead-stripped, your footprint goes up. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
