>UPDATE products;
>SET discontinued = This.chkDiscontinued.Value ;
>WHERE Product_id = vp_Product_ID
>
>Now you have a backend independent segment of code.
That only applies if you're dealing with SQL Passthrough, right? But it's
certainly much cleaner than INSERT INTO's syntax (and it's a lot like the
REPLACE syntax). But I suppose if you're doing backend-independent (SQL
Passthrough), you'd have to use INSERT INTO when adding new records. Is
that right? It's been a long time since I've inserted records into a SQL
backend with pass-through.
One thing I've heard of a couple times is people forget the WHERE clause of
the DELETE statement (and so probably UPDATE as well). Ack! At least in
VFP you'd only mess up 1 record instead of the entire database if you
'forgot' your scope (of course, assuming journaling/logging is taking place
in the SQL DB you should be able to roll it back if you caught it quick
enough).
>...
> >I personally hate REPLACE, and where I am now, there's a lot of code
> >with a TON of REPLACE statements. That's a lot of unnecessary traffic
> >over the network.
> >
> >BUT, I don't consider myself a VFP programmer, I just dabble. All I've
And Jerry already pointed the simplest syntax with the GATHER ... NAME ...
command. That's actually what I use (I should have clarified that when I do
use REPLACE, I use the multi-line syntax). Does anyone know if VFP 8 have
the INSERT INTO ... FROM NAME ....? Or is that something coming in the next
release? Now THAT's cool!
-Charlie
©2003 Charlie Coleman |
