On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:26:29AM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-05 21:11]:
> > What justification is there for re-inventing SQL::Abstract and
> > SQL::Translator rather than sending patches?
>
> Is it forseeable that SQLA will ever be capable of expressi
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Hi Emanuele,
* Emanuele Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-07 13:25]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Emanuele Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-07 11:15]:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
If that is so, then you are asking how the following is
evaluated?
($track->length > 248) & !
Hi Emanuele,
* Emanuele Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-07 13:25]:
> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> >* Emanuele Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-07 11:15]:
> >>Mark Lawrence wrote:
> >>>If that is so, then you are asking how the following is
> >>>evaluated?
> >>>
> >>> ($track->length > 248
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Emanuele Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-07 11:15]:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
If that is so, then you are asking how the following is
evaluated?
($track->length > 248) & ! ($cd->year < 1997)
No, I'm asking how it could be *built* by code without string
concatenation
* Emanuele Zeppieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-07 11:15]:
> Mark Lawrence wrote:
> >If that is so, then you are asking how the following is
> >evaluated?
> >
> >($track->length > 248) & ! ($cd->year < 1997)
>
> No, I'm asking how it could be *built* by code without string
> concatenations/in
* Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-05 21:11]:
> What justification is there for re-inventing SQL::Abstract and
> SQL::Translator rather than sending patches?
Is it forseeable that SQLA will ever be capable of expressing any
arbitrary SQL query whatsoever? Including way unusual things like
