Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: sad <sad@bankir.ru>
Organization: IT
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
Subject: Re: casting BOOL to somthng
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:41:54 +0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
Cc: Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: <200408311306.25545.sad@bankir.ru>
	<200409010829.00893.sad@bankir.ru>
	<20040831222407.W57281@megazone.bigpanda.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040831222407.W57281@megazone.bigpanda.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200409010941.54539.sad@bankir.ru>

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 09:24, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> 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.

then why do you print its value on a screen ?!