On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:51:11 +0100 Petite Abeille <petite.abei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's exactly the same as "SELECT ?", but a little bit easier to > > write. (It behaves like with INSERT, but is now available in every > > place where a SELECT would be allowed.) > > Hmmm? seems rather pointless to me. > > select 1 as value /* from thin air */ union all > select 2 as value /* from thin air */ > ? etc ? > > Seems to be good enough. No point in hijacking a totally unrelated > construct. I would drop such complication if I had a say. There is > already a perfectly fine construct to conjure constants out of thin > air: select. VALUES is a row constructor. You should be able to do VALUES ( ( 'a', 'b', 'c' ) , ('d', 'e', 'f') ) as ( A, B, C ) as T which is a little more direct than a union of SELECTs. You should also eventually be able to say WHERE ( A.a, A.b ) = values ( 'a', 'b' ) or FROM T MINUS VALUES ('a', 'b') and such. Gets you to more of a row-based way of dealing with the data. Funny, we find ourselves on the opposite side of the compexity question this time. --jkl _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users