in reply to Re: DBI specification change
in thread DBI specification change

Bronto, did you see this paragraph? They just changed the spec to match the old behaviour, so if your code worked before (with a Driver.xst-based driver), it'll still work now...

FYI, this change was triggered by discovering that the fetchrow_array implementation in Driver.xst (used by most compiled drivers) didn't match the DBI specification. Rather than change the code to match, and risk breaking existing applications, I've changed the specification (that part was always of dubious value anyway).

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: DBI specification change
by bronto (Priest) on Jul 16, 2002 at 15:58 UTC

    You got a point here.

    My reply, anyway, was triggered by this paragraph of gmax posting...

    I am posting this warning because I have seen some SOPWs where people were using this particular idiom.

    ...and triggered that consideration of mine, which is general and not limited to DBI, that version n.m+1 shouldn't break any code that works with n.m. In case something could be broken, one should choose a new M>>m, obviously IMHO. No attempt to blame to DBI people there ;-)


    Update: Edited the HTML, misplaced tag

    # Another Perl edition of a song:
    # The End, by The Beatles
    END {
      $you->take($love) eq $you->made($love) ;