> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:38 PM Doug <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You're twisting my point here. I obviously want the reverse, > > > I want the database types to "drive" the binding done. 1-to-1. > > > Because even if binding a different type would work, via > SQLite's > > > own implicit conversion, I don't want that, because it's > hiding a > > > bug in the code most likely instead. --DD > > > Is the code inadvertently putting quotes (') around in integer > value [...]? > > I'm talking about "real" binding here: > https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/bind_blob.html > In C/C++, you could mess up your col indexes when binding, or bind > incorrectly for some other reason, and "strong static typing" is more > likely to find those, via SQL failures, than SQLite's default > flexible-typing, that accepts any value in any typed column, > unless you have these explicit CHECK+typeof constraints. --DD
So you are talking about a bug in your code where you inadvertently called: sqlite3_bind_text(sqlite3_stmt*,int,const char*,int,void(*)(void*)); instead of sqlite3_bind_int64(sqlite3_stmt*, int, sqlite3_int64); and you want SQLite to tell you about it. I have a hard time seeing how you could make that kind of coding error, given the different parameters and types in the calls. Doug _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
