Re: DDL

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<41a05509$0$31870$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> DA Morgan wrote:
> > David Fitzjarrell wrote:
> >
> >> Carelessness in responding means, to me, basically 'shooting from the
> >> hip', which I
> >> did not do. I'm sorry, Howard, if you firmly feel as though I did.
> >>
> >> David Fitzjarrell
> >
> >
> > Howard appears to be on one of his rampages where he feels it necessary
> > to "BE RIGHT".
>
> Appearances are deceptive Daniel. If only you would look at the reality,
> instead of appearances, we might get somewhere.
>
> > My read of what you wrote was hardly anything that
> > requires an apology.
>
> I didn't ask David for an apology. I was actually hoping David would
> share with me what he thought Richard's interpretation was in a one-line
> re-phrase of the question, since he seemed to see both interpretations.
>
> >Though some seem to only be satisfied when they
> > extract one: And I grow weary of the game.
>
> I didn't seek to extract an apology. Though anyone who has assumed the
> OP can't speak "proper" English probably owes the OP one.
>
> HJR
Now that you are clear regarding what it is you want, I shall provide:

Original question: "Why is DDL required to be the last statement in a transaction?"

Interpretation: "Why must I conclude a transaction with DDL?"

Nothing in the original question, posted verbatim above, mentions any DDL the OP has written; the inherent meaning and frame of reference is, therefore, open to interpretation. Had the OP written: "Why must I put my DDL statements at the end of a transaction?" there would be no ambiguity, and but one interpretation.

I hope this satisfies your thirst for my interpretation of the original question.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Sun Nov 21 2004 - 21:17:50 CST