Re: getXXX methods
От | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: getXXX methods |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1089230030.1506.226.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: getXXX methods (Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: getXXX methods
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Ok, it appears (at least from my understanding) that Kris is correct here. I had a look at the sql2003 proposed spec (ISO/IEC 9075-2:2003(E)), and it states: A number is assignable only to sites of numeric type. If an assignment of some number would result in a loss of it's most significant digit, an exception conditions is raised. If least significant digits are lost, implementation defined rounding, or truncation occurs, with no exception condition being raised. Dave On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 21:58, Kris Jurka wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Oliver Jowett wrote: > > > > How many people really check for warnings anyway? > > > > I hate this argument. If we don't generate any warnings, of course no > > one will check for them! > > No, this is different. Exceptions are supposed to prevent you from > checking the return code on every function call, which the warning API > seems to want to you to do. > > Kris Jurka > > > > !DSPAM:40eb58bf196361343028809! > > -- Dave Cramer 519 939 0336 ICQ # 14675561
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: