Re: SQL*Plus: Expressions using inner selects not supported?

From: Steve Frampton <3srf_at_qlink.queensu.FOOBAR.ca>
Date: 1998/02/24
Message-ID: <6cv8as$gqa$1_at_news.gov.on.ca>#1/1


[From: header modified to thwart e-mail spam. See .sig for details]

David Vanidour <dvanidou_at_psc-cfp.gc.ca> wrote:

: I don't know Steve, why should that be supported when you could write it
: like this...

[snip]

Yes, I did end up working it out on my own, and it did look similar to this. However I'm sure there still may be the need to do something like

select 1 + (select 5 from dual) from dual;

..this kinds of recursive work shouldn't be that difficult for a parser to handle and would be a nice feature of Oracle 9. :-)

: PS. Note: Stop converting date fields to/from character. First of all
: you are setting yourself up for a Y2K fall and secondly it isn't
: required.

Actually it *is* required in my case. The payroll/personnel system in use at my place of employment (*not* an inhouse system, btw) has hundreds (if not thousands) of components which are all coded like this. The vendor is (supposedly) trying to resolve their rather large Y2K conversion task. As a result any integrated tools I have developed in house (such as an employee absence subsystem) that ties into the system must also use this brain- dead technique for handling dates.

I wanted to make my reasons for engaging in this kind of behavior *quite* clear lest any prospective employers be reading my posts. :-)

The vendor's "solution", btw, is to increase the date field from YYMMDD to YYYYMMDD but keep it in character format. :-) FWIW, the payroll/ personnel system was originally written by a government agency which could help to explain why no apparent thought was put into *design* before coding began. ;-)

No offense if you happen to be a government employee. Oh. You are! :-)

----------------< LINUX: The choice of a GNU generation. >----------------
Steve Frampton <3srf(_at_)qlink.queensu.ca> http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3srf ----------- Please remove .FOOBAR from address before replying. ---------- Received on Tue Feb 24 1998 - 00:00:00 CET

Original text of this message