vc wrote:
> > Yes, it would: your syntax is not valid. The commas are not merely an
> > syntactic alternative to semi-colons, they are semantically different
> > too: they indicate that the two updates are to be treated as a single
> > DML statement with no implicit ordering. You can't insert a call to
> > procedure between the two updates - that is the point of having this
> > syntax!
>
> Never mind 'print', is the update,select,update; sequence legal ?
No. There is no "sequence" here - that is the whole point!
Received on Tue Oct 04 2005 - 10:09:30 CDT
