Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> I don't think that would be better at all. It implies that x, y, and z
> are all optional parameters, which usually isn't the case.
Well, that's up to the developer of the SP, isn't it? I mean, the SP
could react appropriately when one or more of its parameters is NULL
Requiring all SP authors to handle this because it's syntactically required would be stupid.
In this case the SQL committee did a good job in distinguishing syntactically between semantically different activities.
--
Jonathan Ellis
http://spyced.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
