Hi Zeev,
thanks for the prompt reply. I don't think another function
is necessary if this gets changed in 4.1. what do you think?
could you add this to the 4.1 TODO list?
At 23:36 7/18/2001, Zeev Suraski wrote the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------
>No good reason for that. When I wanted to change that, it was already too late in
>the game.
>It'd probably make good sense to add a mysql_get_field_name_ex() which returns a more
>accurate value.
>
>Zeev
>
>At 00:37 19/07/2001, Cynic wrote:
>>Hi there,
>>
>>could anyone tell me what is the reasoning behind the constraints
>>on the values returned by php_mysql_get_field_name()? I. e.:
>>
>>...
>>1737 case FIELD_TYPE_SHORT:
>>1738 case FIELD_TYPE_LONG:
>>1739 case FIELD_TYPE_LONGLONG:
>>1740 case FIELD_TYPE_INT24:
>>1741 return "int";
>>1742 break;
>>1743 case FIELD_TYPE_FLOAT:
>>1744 case FIELD_TYPE_DOUBLE:
>>1745 case FIELD_TYPE_DECIMAL:
>>1746 return "real";
>>1747 break;
>>...
>>
>>why doesn't it return "short", "longlong", "double" etc. i. e. the
>>real value?
>>
>>This has been so since php_mysql.c v1.1 (2yrs, Zeev), so there must be
>>a good reason behind this, but I just see it. anyone care to enlighten
>>me?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
And the eyes of them both were opened and they saw that their files
were world readable and writable, so they chmoded 600 their files.
- Book of Installation chapt 3 sec 7
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
