Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98777
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain beccati.com designates 176.9.123.236 as permitted sender)
To: Adam Baratz <adambaratz@php.net>
References: <CADxrgCMB6iz3XX-+yRp0vY0AVWuuL=VwrdLND_78GF0Vhu0K9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5e3e3e9b-f5b9-a19e-c4cb-6af0f5985d94@beccati.com>
 <CADxrgCP1wa_HiDCujXZV1oEN0CXDzg32VkWDoOaa17s-+bQ9UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <be118423-73db-8b1d-3461-91156dd09d54@beccati.com>
 <CF.A4.18853.7A11DE85@pb1.pair.com>
 <8923084a-a357-91e9-44b5-52a4af0a5df1@beccati.com>
 <CADxrgCOSCzzLObD0+D02cnYFYySgnKDPoKk8Q-ZZ86QcSsQY8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>,
 Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Message-ID: <86e4681f-9030-80fc-896b-56255c4b84c7@beccati.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:50:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADxrgCOSCzzLObD0+D02cnYFYySgnKDPoKk8Q-ZZ86QcSsQY8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] PDO Float Type
From: php@beccati.com (Matteo Beccati)

On 12/04/2017 17:21, Adam Baratz wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest adding a warning to the manual instead.
>>
>> I think that's a requirement in any case.
> 
> 
> I'd be most comfortable with this approach. I'd worry about adding a
> PDO::PARAM_NUMERIC type without investigating how it needs to function for
> each DB, which feels like scope creep. If it starts off as an alias for
> PDO::PARAM_STR, there could be issues updating it to work correctly,
> especially if the right design involves modeling the precision somewhere. I
> added a "Future Scope" section covering this.
> 
> Let me know if there are major problems with this or other points to cover.
> Otherwise, I'll aim to open voting on Monday.

Let's just agree to disagree. I believe they should be investigated and
proposed in a single RFC. Having just one and relying on an obscure
documentation warning is not enough IMHO.

Even your RFC claims that it should be used for numeric types :(

"This test was repeated using the numeric type for the number column."


Cheers
-- 
Matteo Beccati

Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/