On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:35 PM, Jean-Denis Muys wrote: > Don't encumber SQLite with workarounds and special cases > to cater to bugs in client software.
Isn't an accurate synopsis of the problem this: that Sqlite has *already* implemented a workaround in 3.7.0, and that this workaround has actually caused a bigger problem, albeit only for "incorrectly" written code. Therefore, shouldn't this original workaround be fixed, in the way prescribed (since for all intents and purposes the new fix is better than the old fix)? The issue of whether or not sqlite should provide workarounds (in future) to cater for bugs in client software is another question, isn't it? And on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:56 PM, Michael Black wrote: > The only thing I would ask is a clear example of what "correctly" > written is....does that exist? I can't find it in the documentataion. Sorry, not a serious answer to what is a good question, but it might raise a smile: http://www.xkcd.com/844/ Andy _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
