On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:51:11 +0100
Petite Abeille <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It's exactly the same as "SELECT ?", but a little bit easier to
> > write. (It behaves like with INSERT, but is now available in every
> > place where a SELECT would be allowed.)
>
> Hmmm? seems rather pointless to me.
>
> select 1 as value /* from thin air */ union all
> select 2 as value /* from thin air */
> ? etc ?
>
> Seems to be good enough. No point in hijacking a totally unrelated
> construct. I would drop such complication if I had a say. There is
> already a perfectly fine construct to conjure constants out of thin
> air: select.
VALUES is a row constructor. You should be able to do
VALUES ( ( 'a', 'b', 'c' ) , ('d', 'e', 'f') )
as ( A, B, C ) as T
which is a little more direct than a union of SELECTs. You should also
eventually be able to say
WHERE ( A.a, A.b ) = values ( 'a', 'b' )
or
FROM T MINUS VALUES ('a', 'b')
and such. Gets you to more of a row-based way of dealing with the
data.
Funny, we find ourselves on the opposite side of the compexity question
this time.
--jkl
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
