On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 02:20:49PM -0700, Dean Arnold wrote: > Tim Bunce wrote: > >On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:13:05AM -0700, Dean Arnold wrote: > >> > >>The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced > >>I should just POD a caveat that fetchall_XXX with bind_col() > >>isn't supported (much like binding multiple variables to a single > >>column). Why would anyone want to do that anyway? > > > > > >I very much doubt anyone depends on the interaction of bind_col() > >with fetchall_XXX(). I'm not even sure what that interaction is. > >I'd guess the bound variable is left with the value from the last row > >fetched. It's certainly not documented. > > > >I'd be happy to consider a patch that documents that it's undefined. > >Probably belongs in finish() as fetching beyond the last row is > >defined to implicitly/effectively call finish. > > Er, may have just found a purpose for bind_col() on fetchall(): > supplying return type specification. > > Guess I'll support that aspect, but not the actual loading of > the bind variables for fetchall().
Yeap. By "interaction" above I was only thinking of any "after fetchall_XXX() has finished" interaction. Tim.
