On Apr 8, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+d...@rabbit.us> wrote:
>> I would recommend that you don't refer people to that link, as that's
>> generally speaking not how you want to accomplish that particular task.
>
> Please elaborate, also see below.
The example presents special casing a scenario that doesn't need it and is
overly confusing for such a simple use case. It works, but {'column_expr' =>
$val}} or {'column_expr' => {op => $val}} is the more natural and obvious way
to accomplish that task.
>> Let's say then that \[] is insufficient for all your variable binding needs
>> due to Perl limitations.
>
> Let's elaborate on this? Going forward \[] is the only supported way of doing
> sql+bind passing, any issues with it need to be fixed.
I don't know that there are issues with \[], just as discussed Perl prevents us
from using that everywhere we might want it. If DBIx could expose an alternate
structure like:
{
LHS => \[],
op => whatever,
RHS => \[]
}
that would work around the Perl limitation. But I think that's all handled by
SQL::Abstract, so I'm not sure what's realistic here.
Also, we use bind in our codebase quite a bit, in particular with DBIx level
views. I don't see an obvious way to eliminate that necessity. As we figure out
how to use DBIx and SQL::Abstract better, we are reducing the need for custom
SQL views, but there are still many SQL features unsupported by
DBIx/SQL::Abstract that require this.
>> So count gets confused if you use bind => []
>
> Yes, because bind (the rs attribute) is nothing more of "Put these pieces
> *indiscriminately* before the FROM clause bind values". It is true this is
> not clearly documented, putting down a note to have an overhaul of this
> section.
>
> But the actual behavior is consistent with how bind[] was originally
> "designed" - i.e. it is an entirely stateless, low-level tool. This is why
> the \[] variant was devised and everything refers to it these days. Also note
> that if the patches you are working on alter the current behavior of the bind
> attribute it is exceedingly unlikely that I will be able to accept them.
I understand that you want people to use \[], but I am unclear on why you would
not want bind to work correctly in the cases it is still required.
Thanks-
Augustus
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk
