> > btw, what were we hoping to accomplish with length(755)? Why isn't "3"
> > a good answer??
> If you believe it should have an answer at all, then 3 is probably
> the right answer. But it used to be rejected, and I tend to think
> that that's the right behavior. I don't like the idea of silent
> conversions from numeric-looking things into text. It might be
> merely amusing in this case but in other cases it could be very
> confusing if not outright wrong. Why was this change put in?
Actually, I'm not sure a change *was* put in! I haven't yet looked,
but it may be that this is a result of my adding a "number to text"
conversion function. The type conversion code took that and ran!
Remember that for v7.0, "length" for character strings should be
"char_length". Maybe some of the trouble here is from leftover
attempts to get strings and other "length" types to play together in
an underspecified query.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
