Re: A simple notation, again

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:Zx5oi.132999$1i1.114722_at_pd7urf3no...
> David Cressey wrote:
> > ...
> > Oracle RDBMS, on the other hand, did have such a prohibition. In
Oracle, a
> > SELECT with an ORDER BY generated a "Cursor" (or some such thing as
that)
> > while a SELECT without an ORDER BY generated a result table. So they
> > prohibited "ORDER BY" in a view. There was a situation where such a
thing
> > would have been useful to me, but Oracle's punctiliousness prevented me
from
> > having it my way.
>
> I can't see why they would do that. Seems more like misconception than
> precision to me. Why should "ORDER BY" ever determine what other
> operations are allowed?
>
> p

Needless to say, I prefferred the DEC Rdb/VMS implementation, in this instance. Received on Fri Jul 20 2007 - 20:39:39 CEST