Richard,
You're most likely to get an authoritative answer from the Mulgara mailing list:
http://lists.mulgara.org/mailman/listinfo/mulgara-general
-Eddie
On Aug 23, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Rich d'Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had an issue where I missed a level of parentheses in an ITQL where
> clause, e.g:
>
> a or b and c
>
> rather than:
>
> a or (b and c)
>
> in SQL, these would be identical as AND has higher precedence.
>
> In iTQL (and I may be wrong) it looks like the order is indeterminate
> - one test case gave expected results, the other didn't.
>
> Is this the case (obviously, use of parentheses avoids the problem)?
>
> Cheers, Richard
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-commons-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Fedora-commons-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-users
