[fdo-internals] New RFC posted

[Thomas Knoell]

Hi Jason

 

I'll update the docs and resend a message once this is done.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

 

 

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:29 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Yes, thanks.

 

I don't know if it matters if this is added to the RFC, but it should
probably be in the docs somewhere...

 

Jason

 

 

  _____  

From: Thomas Knoell
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

Hi Jason

 

For functions like MOD and REMAINDER, the intent is to use the same data
type for the return value as used for the first parameter. In some
cases, this is not possible and hence the return type is different. For
example, look at the signatures for the function MOD where the first
parameter is an int16 and the second parameter either a decimal, double,
int16, int32, int64 or single data type. In this example, the return
value differs based on the provided values:

 

Signature
Return Value Data Type

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

Mod (FdoDataType_Int16, FdoDataType_Decimal)
FdoDataType_Double

Mod (FdoDataType_Int16, FdoDataType_Double)
FdoDataType_Double

Mod (FdoDataType_Int16, FdoDataType_Int16)
FdoDataType_Int16

Mod (FdoDataType_Int16, FdoDataType_Int32)
FdoDataType_Int16

Mod (FdoDataType_Int16, FdoDataType_Int64)
FdoDataType_Int16

Mod (FdoDataType_Int16, FdoDataType_Single)
FdoDataType_Single

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20070822/a47378f5/attachment-0001.html