At 08:59 AM 3/20/00 -0600, Greg Bacon wrote: >In message <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000320012616@perlfaq.com>, > "Joseph N. Hall" writes: > >: You p5p-ers may or may not understand the significance and popularity of >: SQL and Perl but from my contact with the real world, it's headed toward >: "huge." A few syntactical nods in its direction will likely make Perl >: many new friends a year or two down the road. > >I've only used DBI (as opposed to, say, Pro*C and friends) when talking >to databases, so I have no idea what outsiders might want or expect >(though reading people's code in *.pc makes me see that particular >implementation as being rigid and inflexible). I've used both. (As well as Pro*COBOL, though I don't like admitting that in public... :) Embedded SQL is, without a doubt, terribly rigid and not particularly pleasant or perlish. On the other hand, at one point (the point where I was using Oracle regularly) I'd have killed, or at least given really nasty paper cuts, for it as a way to wean folks off of C. (It's amazing how many people write reports, including financial reports, in C. It's got to be one of the *least* suitable languages for that sort of thing...) A qs (which I'd document as "quote special" rather than "quote SQL" that did some sort of function call would be great. If this: qs(select foo from bar where baz = $xyzzy); got translated into: QS("select foo from bar where baz = ?", [{NAME => '$xyzzy', REFERENCE => \$xyzzy, TYPE => 'SCALAR'}]); or something similar, would be really nice. Heck, the replacement character could be a null, or *something*, who cares what. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunkThread Previous | Thread Next