Peter Gulutzan wrote:
> Hi Øystein,
>
> Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
>> Bar,
>>
>> Forgot to mention two things:
>>
>> 1. Since I am not able to understand from the work log how things are
>> supposed to work, I have given on verifying that your changes behaves
>> correctly with respect default charset vs ASCII. (Since you did not
>> write nor nor approved the worklog, that is not your fault.)
> <cut>
>
> I wrote the worklog. Sergei Golubchik approved.
> It says return "with character set = character_set_connection".
> It says "this worklog has nothing to do with ascii".
>
> What is it that is our fault here?
It may be that I have misunderstood something here. Could you please
comment on the following excerpt from the review discussion between Bar
and me:
Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
> Alexander Barkov wrote:
> > Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
> >> 1. I think I understood most of the worklog, but I am a bit puzzled
> >> with the following statement: "Now this worklog has nothing to do
> >> with ascii."
> > >
> >> Why then does this patch introduce methods called
> >> val_ascii and change charsets from binary to latin1? Is this
> >> related to what is said in the section "Other automatic
> >> conversions"? I am not really able to tell what that section is
> >> saying. I think the worklog needs to explain this better.
> >
> > Thanks for noticing this.
> >
> > This phrase needs to be either removed,
> > or rephrased to something like this:
> >
> > "This patch does not introduce a build-in 'ascii' character set".
> >
>
> OK. So this means that there are no 'ascii' character set, but latin1
> is used instead?
>
> My problem is that I am not able to understand from the worklog where
> ascii should be used instead of the character set/collation defined by
> the connection. Is this so obvious that it does not need to be
> mentioned, or is it mentioned in a way that I am not able to
> understand?
>
...
> >> 6. It is probably not my business, since I am not the architectural
> >> reviewer, but it would be easier to verify the behavior if the
work
> >> log had contained a table with all functions affected, what they
> >> used to return, what they will return, and what charset will be
> >> used. The way it is now, it is a bit hard to verify that all has
> >> been covered, and, especially, what charset should be used.
> >
> > I proposed that to PeterG and Sergei, who are the author and
> > architecture reviewer for WL#2649. Their verdict was "no needs",
>
> As I said, it would be nice to know when ascii is supposed to be used
> or not.
>
--
Øystein
