On 6/21/07, Matthew Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using Access 2000 .mdb as a backend to my python script and am
seeing some inconsistencies in the results.
If I run the script below, I get 15 rows.
If I run the SAME EXACT query directly in MS Access, I get 12 rows.
Perhaps
As far as I know, Windows is treated a little differently than other
operating systems - since Windows itself is UCS2, Python will only support
UCS2. pywin32 would break in all kinds of ways, as we assume a Python
Unicode object's data can be passed directly to Unicode win32 functions,
whereas UCS
Hi!
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Hammond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Marc-André Belzile'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [python-win32] pywin and UCS2/UCS4
> As far as I know, since Windows itself is UCS2
When I had wrapper the shell of w
"Matthew Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi all,
>
> I'm using Access 2000 .mdb as a backend to my python script and am
> seeing some inconsistencies in the results.
>
> If I run the script below, I get 15 rows.
>
> If I run the SAME EXACT query directly in
On 6/21/07, Graeme Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If your not forced to use Access, I would suggest looking at sqlite
> (built-in in python2.5 onwards), or available as 3rd party module in
> versions 2.4 and below
>
Access is the only option for this project as this is a legacy
database wi
I've installed Python 2.5 for all users using the python-2.5.msi
installer. I've also searched for python25.dll and there is only one
copy of it (in C:\WINDOWS\system32\python25.dll).
Obviously, something is wrong in my XP environment, maybe a dll with
the wrong version (mfc?). Can this be related
Matthew Perry wrote:
> I'm using Access 2000 .mdb as a backend to my python script and am
> seeing some inconsistencies in the results.
>
> If I run the script below, I get 15 rows.
>
> If I run the SAME EXACT query directly in MS Access, I get 12 rows.
>
Can you see any pattern to the rows t
On 6/21/07, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you see any pattern to the rows that are missing? The query seems
> simple enough.
>
Well there were a lot of old-style wildcards in the subqueries (using
* instead of %).
>From Access, the query is run using the sql-89-esque syntax. From
