> A simple rule of thumb is to look at how useful features would be to > other SQLite users. Note that you are the only one to have asked for > this feature and not one other person has agreed with you on its need! > The responses have generally been along the lines of suggesting you > organize your code so that you do not need it. But even if it was > added as a debugging aid, do you expect people to compile up two > versions of SQLite - one with debugging aids on and another with them > off? This feature would impose decisions like that on others in > addition to the future maintenance costs.
You must be very unhappy about current existence of sqlite3_get_autocommit function, right? You said, by the way: "It is not needed, if you organize your code well." :D It is the same case! Question is: Users can ask SQLite for transaction state. But they cannot ask for transaction name? First is useful and many users needs it, and second not? I am surprised. But never mind, I register your response "no"! Forget it, sorry for my bothering. -- Lukas Gebauer. E-mail: gebau...@mlp.cz http://synapse.ararat.cz/ - Ararat Synapse - TCP/IP Lib. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
