RE: [PEAR-DEV] RFC: slight modification to the get*Value() methods

> Currently working with NULL values is a bit clumsy imho. > If you want a NULL value from getTimestampValue() for example you will > have to set the value passed to the method to 'Null'. Its even worse > for getTextValue where this is currently not even handled internally. > You will have to determine if to use getTextValue() or not yourself. > This is done because the string 'Null' passed to getTextValue() could > very well mean that you want the string 'Null' inserted into your DB. > > > Therefore I am proposing the following change: > If you pass the PHP constant NULL to any of the get*Value() methods > you will get the string 'NULL' returned. > > > Then we don't need the old method used in all but getTextValue() of > passing the string 'Null', so I would like to drop it. Could you expand the part regarding getTextValue? In particular, what are the differences between the following statements: ---- $var = NULL; $db->getTextValue($var); ---- $var = 'NULL'; $db->getTextValue($var); ---- To me it's quite obvious that the first one should return a NULL constant, while the second one should return the 'NULL' string. What the current behaviour is and what the proposed one is? If I use get*Value(null) I'd like to have a NULL constant back, don't care what the field datatype is. But if I use getTextValue('null') I'd like to have the 'null' string back... I don't think that having the string 'NULL' back on NULL fields would be welcome... I mean, yes, maybe the MDB method is a bit faster, but then it's up to the user to check if a 'NULL' string is returned, so this only means more work for the user and zero gained time. But I really think I didn't understand what you meant :-) Regards, Lorenzo --- [Quipo ISP - Questa E-mail e' stata controllata dal programma Declude Virus] [Quipo ISP - This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]