From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
To: sad <sad@bankir.ru>
Cc: Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: casting BOOL to somthng
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20040831222407.W57281@megazone.bigpanda.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200409010829.00893.sad@bankir.ru>
References: <200408311306.25545.sad@bankir.ru>
<200408311524.16036.sad@bankir.ru>
<8618C5BA-FB54-11D8-A2A0-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com>
<200409010829.00893.sad@bankir.ru>
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, sad wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2004 17:49, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 2004, at 8:24 PM, sad wrote:
> > > and i am still desire to know _WHY_ there are no predefined cast for
> > > BOOL ?
> > > and at the same time there are predefined casts for INT and FLOAT......
> >
> > I think the main reason is what is the proper textual representation of
> > BOOLEAN? True, PostgreSQL returns 't' as a representation for the
> > BOOLEAN value TRUE, but some people might want it to return 'TRUE' or
> > 'true' or other representations. Picking one is perhaps arbitrary.
>
> There are many (infinite number) of INT representations,
> "Picking one is perhaps arbitrary." But you poke one and using it.
There's a fairly accepted convention for integer representations.
There's no such convention for boolean representations.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com, sad@bankir.ru, grzm@myrealbox.com
Subject: Re: casting BOOL to somthng
In-Reply-To: <20040831222407.W57281@megazone.bigpanda.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox