Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: sad <sad@bankir.ru>
Organization: IT
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>
Subject: Re: casting BOOL to somthng
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:29:00 +0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: <200408311306.25545.sad@bankir.ru>
	<200408311524.16036.sad@bankir.ru>
	<8618C5BA-FB54-11D8-A2A0-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <8618C5BA-FB54-11D8-A2A0-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200409010829.00893.sad@bankir.ru>

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.

If some one wants another representation you ask him do define his own=20
function and use it instead of cast. And you are right. In your system=20
integers textully represented as you define. Just define one representation=
=20
for boolean and leave the rest for user definition.