On 6/13/07 10:24 PM, Cees Hek wrote: > Well, joining the same table twice is a valid SQL construct (similar > to doing a self join), and it can be useful in certain situations. So > I would vote to keep it... > > Was there a specific reason that it was changed? Or did it just > happen as part of refactoring the code?
I specifically added it as a means to efficiently collapse a.b.c and a.b.c.d into just a, b, c, and d. I suppose I can an an exception that treats a.b.c.d seen twice into a, b, c, d, a, b, c, d. Hm... -John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
