* Matt S Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-28 21:35]:
We're just allowing that error to be surpressed in cases of old
MySQL setups where the config bit to make it error correctly
can't be flipped for hysterical raisins.
Ah, I hadn’t seen there’s an unbreak-me setting for that now.
Regards,
--
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:59:17AM +1000, Robert Loomans wrote:
This is the right thing to do in terms of database agnosticism
also: if you treat -00-00 like NULL, the API will exhibit
consistent semantics regardless of whether you’re using MySQL
or a real database. In contrast, the
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 09:06:55PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Exactly. -00-00 is not an error nor should it lead to any. It
should be treated just like a NULL.
It should -always- lead to an error.
We're just allowing that error to be surpressed in cases of old MySQL
setups where the
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* J. Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-18 18:10]:
Here's a patch I wrote that will simply return undef if there
is an exception inflating the date.
That seems like a weird approach. -00-00 is a pseudo-NULL.
(An unnecessary and idiotic way of saying NULL, but
* Robert Loomans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-28 02:05]:
It's less of a problem if the code is developed on MySQL and
then deployed on another DB the developer will add the
column flag during development and be done.
I think that’s even more dangerous than the other way around: it
is very
Tactlessly replying to myself... spoke with mst on irc and came up
with http://dev.catalystframework.org/svnweb/bast/revision?rev=4596
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM, J. Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, we all hate MySQL. That's a given, but some of us have to work
with it so lets make
