Mike Owens wrote: > On 9/11/06, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Sure. But if you go back to the start of the thread you'll remember the >>OP was originally complaining that SQLite was being promoted in the >>Python docs as SQL compliant. > > > Define "SQL compliant." That's about as technically precise as saying > that something tastes like chicken. > > Furthermore, I'm not responding to Python's representation of one > thing or another. I am responding to some of the ridiculous and unfair > criticisms directed at SQLite. Whatever Python did or didn't do, or > whatever PySQLite does or doesn't do, SQLite doesn't deserve to be > drug through the mud. > Which is precisely why I took pains to acknowledge that there were many purposes for which SQLite is entirely suitable. > >>You shouldn't need to >>add check constraints to verify that the value stored in an integer >>column is actually an integer. > > > You should if your using SQLite, and this is clearly documented: > http://www.sqlite.org/datatype3.html. > Right. In which case, why bother to define the types of the columns in your table declarations? > >>I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that SQLite isn't a prefectly >>good tool for many purposes: it's far more sophisticated than bsddb, for >>example, and I've used both it and Gadfly (which has similar >>deficiencies when compared to strict standards) with complete satisfaction. > > > Then what does calling it crappy and goofy suggest?
That colloquial English expression is acceptable on this list. Strict affinity mode seems to represent a movement towards more rigorous type checking. So the designers of SQLIte accept that it wasn't perfect. So what? Please, don't take on so. It's only ones and zeroes. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
