On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
> What I was getting at was that Tom's behavior (or even mine) is more
> similar to the currently described behavior than the suggested one.
I understand. As part of developing the package changes, though, I found
that Oracle used the method I described for finding routines in packages.
From Peter's description, it sounds like Oracle's not following the spec.
> I'd say the same thing for a random math function as well. For example
> if there was a square(int) that returned $1*$1 and I made a square for my
> complex type, I'd still expect that square(5) is an integer rather than a
> complex using the square(complex). For example, I'd expect square(5) to
> be a valid length argument to substr.
Yeah, that makes sense.
> > Does SQL'99 say anything about this?
> That I don't know about (don't have a draft around to look at). I'm not
Do you want pdfs?
> sure that it'd have these problems though unless it's got the same sort of
> coercion system.
I don't think it has the same sort of coercion, but it has some, I'd
expect (as all of the DBs I know of have some sort of coercion :-)
Take care,
Bill
