Re: Searching?
From: Adam (ajacobs_at_dianthus.nospam.co.uk)
Date: 07/15/04
- Next message: Steve Schapel: "Re: User Defined type not defined"
- Previous message: Adam: "Re: Lack of error message"
- In reply to: Tim Ferguson: "Re: Searching?"
- Next in thread: John Nurick: "Re: Searching?"
- Reply: John Nurick: "Re: Searching?"
- Reply: Tim Ferguson: "Re: Searching?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:03:40 +0100
"Tim Ferguson" <FergusonTG@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9525D81BE4781garbleme4455656@207.46.248.16...
>
> >
> > I'll leave it to someone who knows more about these things than I do
> > to say whether 'seek' is better than 'find'
>
> Both redundant... replaced by SQL sometime in the late seventies.
>
>
What, totally redundant? Is there nothing that can be done more easily with
'seek' or 'find' than with SQL? If I find myself using one of these in my
code, does that always mean I could have written the code more elegantly
using SQL?
Adam
- Next message: Steve Schapel: "Re: User Defined type not defined"
- Previous message: Adam: "Re: Lack of error message"
- In reply to: Tim Ferguson: "Re: Searching?"
- Next in thread: John Nurick: "Re: Searching?"
- Reply: John Nurick: "Re: Searching?"
- Reply: Tim Ferguson: "Re: Searching?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|