Re: DBD::mysql path forward

2017-11-10 Thread demerphq
On 10 November 2017 at 13:11, wrote: > Should DBD::mysql maintainers now starting complaining to Oracle and > MariaDB, that they must revert their changes in MySQL and MariaDB, just > because DBD::mysql (as libmysqlclient application) stopped working, > because is misusing internals of C structur

Re: DBD::mysql path forward

2017-11-10 Thread demerphq
On 9 November 2017 at 15:45, wrote: > On Thursday 09 November 2017 14:26:01 Peter Rabbitson wrote: >> On 11/09/2017 01:46 PM, Noel Butler wrote: >> >On 09/11/2017 21:32, p...@cpan.org wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>>What the complaints in this thread are focused on is what the *users* >> >>>want. >> >and

Re: DBD::mysql path forward

2017-09-27 Thread demerphq
On 27 September 2017 at 16:16, wrote: > On Tuesday 26 September 2017 14:20:33 Night Light wrote: >> That's a nifty function. Good to know that it can be reversed. > > UTF-8 encode is a function which for any number from the range > 0..1114111 assign unique sequence of the numbers 0..255. > > Ther

Re: DBD::mysql path forward

2017-09-26 Thread demerphq
On 19 September 2017 at 14:46, Night Light wrote: > Dear Perl gurus, > > This is my first post. I'm using Perl with great joy, and I'd like to > express my gratitude for all you are doing to keep Perl stable and fun to > use. > > I'd like to ask to object to re-releasing this version and discuss o

Re: DBD::mysql path forward

2017-09-26 Thread demerphq
On 26 September 2017 at 12:15, Night Light wrote: > The corruption is caused by the fact that the data type of a BLOB can not be > recognized and is therefore UTF8 encoded like a string before being sent to > MySQL. Which means it can be fixed. And in a sane scenario will be detectable. Corrupti

Re: perl pad.c Assertion !((sv)->sv_flags & 0x00010000) failed

2007-06-22 Thread demerphq
On 6/22/07, Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:33:03 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:47:11PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: >> On 21/06/07, Steve Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >I remember lots of discussion a while ago about constructions li