Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
> > Gregory Stark wrote:
> >>
> >> Well "char" doesn't have quite the same semantics as CHAR(1). If that's the
> >> consensus though then I can work on either fixing "char" semantics to match
> >> CHAR(1) or adding a separate type instead.
> >
> > What semantics?
>
> The main bit that comes to mind is 32::CHAR(1) give you '3' but 32::"char"
> gives you ' '.
>
> Really it makes more sense if you think of "char" is a 1 byte integer type
> with some extra text casts and operators to make C programmers happy, not a 1
> byte character type.
One very nifty trick would be to fix "char" to act as CHAR(), and map
CHAR(1) automatically to "char".
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
