[DB-SIG] Controlling return types, again

[Carsten Haese]

On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 19:21 +0200, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Art Protin wrote at 2007-5-22 09:22 -0400:
> > ...
> >In my opinion (which is never as humble as it should be), "qmark" is 
> >barely adequate;
> >numeric should be the required minimum.  But now that so many have 
> >gotten used
> >to "qmark", it will probably never go away.
> 
> If we speak about readability and safety, "%(name)s" combined
> with a dictionary is far better than "numeric" or "qmark".
> 
> SQL statements can get quite a lot of parameters and readability is
> therefore valuable...

I agree, but named style, i.e. ":name" is even more readable, and it's
not as easily confused with string formatting.

-- 
Carsten Haese
http://informixdb.sourceforge.net