The point isn't in the amount of coding but in the performance. It isn't required to build intermediate data structures. 2006/1/4, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>:
On 2006-01-04, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
It's probably the same amount of coding either way:
[hsql-esque example]
fetch sth h1 <- get sth "col1" h2 <- get sth "col2" func h1 h2
I should add that yet another option with HDBC is:
l colname colmap = Map.lookup colname colmap >>= fromSql
row <- fetchRowMap sth h1 <- l "col1" row h2 <- l "col2" row func h1 h2
So I think you should be able to use HDBC as-is in that usage scenario pretty easily.
I could add a function like "l" to HDBC if people think it would be generically useful.
-- John
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell