Re: Forms5/6i: any benefits using NAME_IN instead of bind variable ?

OK, that´s an argument.
[Quoted] But for a "normal" tiny PU or a Forms Trigger containing 20 lines ?

"Fred van Nimwegen" <fred.vannimwegen_at_wanadoo.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:407c41ae$0$64611$4a441750_at_news.wanadoo.nl...
> In librarys Name_in and Copy are the only options.
>
>
> "Jan Gelbrich" <j_gelbrich_at_westfalen-blatt.de> schreef in bericht
> news:c5gtdj$1evbl$1_at_ID-93924.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just stumbled upon the NAME_IN built-in in a forms PU,
> > and found that in my little case all that snippets could be replaced
> > and shortened by using bind variables (the items).
> > When I found
> >
> > If Name_In('Person.Id') Is Null ...
> >
> > ,I replaced it with
> >
> > If :Person.Id Is Null ...
> >
> > The Forms docco says many things that *can* be done with NAME_IN.
> > But AFAIAC, I could not find any benefits using it.
> > I even thought it is harder to re-read in maintainance.
> > If e.g. the block name changes, NAME_IN will not notice it,
> > but the bind variable will, when I compile.
> >
> > The question is: is it *wise* (not) to prefer NAME_IN
> > for some purposes ? So far I thought bind variables are the way to go,
> > always.
> >
> > Same goes for COPY built-in, BTW ...
> >
> > Any comments appreciated.
> > P.S.: Forms 5/6i , Oracle EE 8.1.7.3
> >
> > TIA,
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 14 2004 - 12:15:06 CEST