Open kevinresol opened 6 years ago
In fact, I think we should support all basic Haxe data types and map them to the most sensible db type. But still allow using the specialized types in Types
. Any comments @benmerckx @jasononeil @back2dos ?
I had no idea. Good to know ^^
In fact, I think we should support all basic Haxe data types and map them to the most sensible db type.
Definitely. If we could have typedef BigInt = haxe.Int64
that'd be pretty cool, but I suppose that depends on the drivers.
In fact, I think we should support all basic Haxe data types and map them to the most sensible db type.
That'd be nice, because the structures are often used elsewhere (clientside) too.
I just realized it: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5634104/what-is-the-size-of-column-of-int11-in-mysql-in-bytes/27519793#27519793
Maybe we should consider removing the type parameter, and use Haxe's
Int
type instead. (But could addTinyInt
, etc)