On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:13:23 +0000, Martin Ebourne <li...@ebourne.me.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 15:00 -0800, Brian Marshall wrote: > > I can't testify for any other database, but mysql lets you use the same > > syntax for both operations. > > > > INSERT INTO `foo` SET `bar` = 'foobar' not even 'VALUES' required? And I hate that. Now I want to type INSERT foo SET bar = 'foobar' WHERE baz = 42; what would that do? > > UPDATE `foo` SET `bar` = 'wombat' WHERE `bar` = 'foobar' > > > > I find the VALUES() syntax horribly unnatural and disjointed. I refuse > > to use it. > > Yes, mysql does take even more liberties with SQL than any of the other More liberties is less portability Less portability is more hate > databases I can think of. Which is really quite hateful most of the > time. Nothing beats Oracle (yet) -- H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/) using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.10.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11, & 11.23, SuSE 10.1 & 10.2, AIX 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
