The first proposal seems to me a very good one and contributes to
clarity in programs. The second one is of dubious value and a poor
tradeoff in my opinion.
JS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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]>
