On 30 Oct 2009, at 2:14pm, P Kishor wrote: > Actually, there can be one bad effect of Darren's suggestion, now that > I think of it, and that would be for those who don't care for strong > typing. They will end up getting strong typing for all non-UNIVERSAL > columns whether they like it or not, whether they expect it or not, > unless there is a pragma as well to just disable strong typing > completely. See, it is getting less Lite and more Heavy. At this > point, those who are dissatisfied with SQLite should just move to > PostGres of MySQL.
Yes. The proper way to implement strong typing, for those who want it, is to introduce a keyword for strong typing, not change the meaning of existing keywords. So for instance you could define numberOrdered INTEGER numberSent STRONG INTEGER or something like that. Without the word 'STRONG' column types would continue to mean what they've always meant. But as others have said here, my opinion is that the enforcement of typing is not the job of a database engine, it's the job of the application, which can check types at the same time as it checks 'not- negative', and 'must-contain-only-printable-characters'. It's a waste putting strong types into SQLite when late (or weak) typing is so much more powerful. Simon. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
