On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Au contraire. The real issue here is how to decide which numeric type
> to use for an undecorated but numeric-looking literal token. I don't
You lost me. How does that relate to the character types? You are not
suggesting that '123.456' should be considered a number? It seems pretty
clear to me that anything of the form [0-9]+ is an integer, something with
an 'e' in it is a float, and something with only digits and decimal points
is numeric. If passing around an 'numeric' object is too expensive, keep
it as a string for a while longer. As you did.
> think that's a non-mainstream problem, and I definitely don't think
> that telling the odd-datatype crowd to take a hike will help fix it.
It remains to be shown how big that "hike", if at all existent, would be
...
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden