apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Donovan <donov...@bellatlantic.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r667182 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk: Makefile.win aprutil.dsw dbd/apr_dbd.c dbd/apr_dbd_odbc.c dbd/apr_dbd_odbc.dsp include/apu.hw include/private/apr_dbd_odbc_v2.h
Date Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:27:43 GMT
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 17:54 +0000, tdonovan@apache.org wrote:
> 
>> +    SQL_C_CHAR, /*SQL_C_TYPE_TIME,      /* APR_DBD_TYPE_TIME,       \%pDi */
>> +    SQL_C_CHAR, /*SQL_C_TYPE_DATE,      /* APR_DBD_TYPE_DATE,       \%pDd */
>> +    SQL_C_CHAR, /*SQL_C_TYPE_TIMESTAMP, /* APR_DBD_TYPE_DATETIME,   \%pDa */
>> +    SQL_C_CHAR, /*SQL_C_TYPE_TIMESTAMP, /* APR_DBD_TYPE_TIMESTAMP,  \%pDs */
>> +    SQL_C_CHAR, /*SQL_C_TYPE_TIMESTAMP, /* APR_DBD_TYPE_ZTIMESTAMP, \%pDz */
> 
> Nested comment?
> 
Actually just supposed to be a reminder that, while ODBC defines bona-fide "C" datatypes for
date, 
time, & timestamp - DBD currently treats them all as char for now.

I would be happy to take the /*'s out if it's confusing.

Is there a reason not to have /* in a comment?  They don't nest in C (but, curiously - they're

suppose to nest in SQL - although few dbs actually do that).

-tom-





Mime
View raw message