Re: A simple notation, again
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:45:43 -0300
Message-ID: <469f5cd0$0$8838$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:45:43 -0300
Message-ID: <469f5cd0$0$8838$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
>
>> On 17 juil, 15:57, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote: >> >>> Cimode wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 16, 7:05 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote in message >>> >>>
[snip]
As much as I criticize SQL (which I think is
> easy even if I don't know it much!), I don't see anything wrong with
> "ORDER BY".
>
> p
There isn't anything wrong with explicit order. Implicit order is problematic, but explicit order is just fine. Consider rankings and quota queries.
What meaning would they have without some order? The RM only requires we spell out the order we intend. Received on Thu Jul 19 2007 - 14:45:43 CEST