$SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" ) is not programmatically the same as $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%" "%Server A%" is a literal string, will always be what is between quotes. "%" + $SERVER$ + "%" is a computed dynamic string, with $SERVER$ being populated at run-time. If $SERVER$ <> "Server A" the two are different. %text% isn't magic, it's a system variable that is populated at runtime. This is for flexibility, and server independence in the case of reserved word $SERVER$. $USER$ is a system variable that populates out to the logged in user, so that you don't need to hard code it in every instance or test. The same applies to $SERVER$, etc... Because of this, at times the interpreter may require that a dynamic format be used, rather than a literal format, so it can be properly managed.
Thanks, Mark Mark Lev Sr. Systems Consultant 703-672-4390 732-859-5827 (cell) [email protected] ----------------------------------------------------------- RightStar Systems, Inc. 100 East Street SE, Suite 202 Vienna, VA 22180 USA ----------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Juan Ingles Sent: Thu 3/19/2009 12:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved ** The only reason I can think of why it would be different is if %text% was something "magic" to the interpreter. Like windows trying to expand it as a environment variable, for instance. Juan Ingles -- On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Guillaume Rheault <[email protected]> wrote: ** I totally agree with you that $SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" ) should be the same as $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%", and I have assumed that in the past. I guess I should not assume the obvious.... -Guillaume -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Lyle Taylor Sent: Tue 03/17/09 1:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved Perhaps I'm just overly critical. I come from a more hard-core programming background, so when I see things like this, I see it as poor design and/or lazy programming. If it's the nature of the beast, that's only because the beast was made like that, not because of technical limitations that drove this design. If two statements are interpreted the same but don't work the same, that's a bug in my opinion. The two statements are technically equivalent and should be treated exactly the same. You're philosophy is good, I just get worked up about these kinds of things in commercial software... Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ <mailto:ars__Platinum%20Sponsor:%20RMI%20Solutions%20ARSlist:> _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
