You are right. The SQL implementation uses C strings behind the scenes for
both SQLite and Postgres.
I'll be happy to implement BLOB support if you can suggest a good syntax
for it from APL.
Regards,
Elias
On 19 April 2014 22:34, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks good. I am a little concerned that the vector produced by 3 ⎕TF
> may have trouble going to and from an SQL VARCHAR using the existing (and
> fantastic!) library. I am not sure, but there may be a problem with C null
> characters ('\0') or other non-printable characters. Some feedback on this
> would be very helpful.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Blake
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Juergen Sauermann <
> juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Blake,
>>
>> I have added 11⎕CR for APL → CDR and 12⎕CR for CDR → APL conversions, see
>> SVN 217.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> * 12 ⎕CR CDR←11 ⎕CR 'Hello' 1 (2 3)*
>> * Hello 1 2 3 *
>> * ⍴CDR*
>> *128*
>>
>>
>> /// Jürgen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/19/2014 12:16 PM, Blake McBride wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Now that the wonderful SQL interface is working for me, I believe I can
>> create a component and keyed file system in straight APL easily. I just
>> need to understand ⎕TF a bit better.
>>
>> 1. 3 ⎕TF seems to produce a string vector representation of an
>> arbitrary nested array without retaining the specific name of the variable.
>> Is this true? (If so, this is exactly what I need!)
>>
>> 2. How can I reverse the process? i.e. if X holds the result of a 3
>> ⎕TF, I need a way of converting it back to an APL (possibly nested) array
>> that is exactly the same array. i.e.:
>>
>> x←(5 5⍴⍳25) 'Hello there'
>> y←3⎕TF'x'
>> z←??????????
>>
>> I need to know what ?????? is so that x and z have the exactly
>> equivalent arrays.
>>
>> 3. I am a little concerned that the vector produced by 3 ⎕TF may have
>> trouble going to and from an SQL VARCHAR using the existing (and
>> fantastic!) library. I am not sure, but there may be a problem with C null
>> characters ('\0') or other non-printable characters. Some feedback on this
>> would be very helpful.
>>
>> I suppose I can achieve the same effect by using 2⎕TF and then dropping
>> the assignment part before executing the string. This should be highly
>> portable but I'd guess less efficient. Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks a lot!!
>>
>> Blake
>>
>>
>>
>
