Re: Planner question - "bit" data types

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Karl Denninger<karl@denninger.net> wrote:
> The individual boolean fields don't kill me and in terms of some of the
> application issues they're actually rather easy to code for.
>
> The problem with re-coding for them is extensibility (by those who install
> and administer the package); a mask leaves open lots of extra bits for
> "site-specific" use, where hard-coding booleans does not, and since the
> executable is a binary it instantly becomes a huge problem for everyone but
> me.
>
> It does appear, however, that a bitfield doesn't evaluate any differently
> than does an integer used with a mask, so there you have it..... it is what
> it is, and if I want this sort of selectivity in the search I have no
> choice.

You can always create 32 boolean fields and only use some of them,
leaving the others for site-specific use...

...Robert