I'm for both changes... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 November 2005 13:18 To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: [sqlite] Request for comment: Proposed SQLite API changes
As currently implemented, when an error occurs during sqlite3_step(), the function returns SQLITE_ERROR. Then you have to call either sqlite3_reset() or sqlite3_finalize() to find the actual error code. Suppose this where to change in version 3.3.0 so that the actual error code was returned by sqlite3_step(). That would mean that moving from version 3.2.7 to 3.3.0 might involve some minor code changes. The API would not be 100% backwards compatible. But the API would be cleaner. What does the community think about such a change? Another proposal: Suppose that when creating an sqlite3_stmt using sqlite3_prepare, the original SQL text was stored in the sqlite3_stmt. Then when a schema change occurred, the statement was automatically recompiled and rebound. There would no more SQLITE_SCHEMA errors. But sqlite3_stmts would use a little more memory. And sqlite3_step might take a little longer to initialize sometimes if it found it needed to rerun the parser. What about this change? Is it a worth-while tradeoff? -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
