> From other postings I see that Paulo knows about
> FOR...SELECT...INTO...DO...SUSPEND so I take it that he finds this syntax
> burdensome and thinks that it should simply be SELECT * FROM someTable
> WHERE someCondition...;
>
> Sorry, but I don't buy it. If that's all that the complaint is then I'm
> dismissing it as noise.

Oh Doug, I am shocked! I was holding my breath on it and all!!!
Like... I am turning purple by now.

Anyway, I already made clear I do not expect that someone will actually
take this seriously. In Open Source, if you want things done you can do
them yourself, which is called "scratching your own itches". And I am not
willing to go back to coding in C just to scratch this one.

So, I am always suggesting. Not demanding or something like that. Not
even complaining.


Now, I just showed that I do not like typing more code than what is
necessary to tell what I want. And then I suggested a syntax that would
allow us to type less when returning a dataset.

OTOH, you are just showing you like to type code. As much as it takes.
And that you do not care about features that make it shorter. And you
went trough the trouble of organizing previous postings and write a
bit just to show that.

Now, what I am missing is: how is your noise better than mine???


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Chamberlin [mailto:DChamberlin@...]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 4:21 AM
>
>
> Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> >What I really miss is being able to return result sets ( = a set of
> >rows = the result of some SELECT) from inside a Stored Proc.
>
> To which I replied:
> > Maybe I don't understand the details of what you are
> suggesting but I select
> > result sets provided from stored procedures all the time in Interbase!
>
> To which Paulo replied:
> > I meant a la SQL Server, which is a bit simpler.
>
> I replied:
> > Which means what, exactly? I don't know SQL server very well. How is it
> > simpler?
>
> Paulo replied:
> > For context take a look at my previous posting. But basically it means
> that doing:
> > SELECT * FROM someTable WHERE someCondition...;
> > will return a resultset.
>
> From other postings I see that Paulo knows about
> FOR...SELECT...INTO...DO...SUSPEND so I take it that he finds this syntax
> burdensome and thinks that it should simply be SELECT * FROM someTable
> WHERE someCondition...;
>
> Sorry, but I don't buy it. If that's all that the complaint is then I'm
> dismissing it as noise.