Posted by Shuurai on 07/31/07 15:35

On Jul 31, 10:00 am, --CELKO-- <jcelko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> No; it would much more likely mean that he wants to pass a set of values to his function. <<
>
> Not very likely at all. Read the last 5+ years of postings here and
> you will see that when they want to pass a list to an IN() predicate,
> they explicitly ask about that. When they want to pass a table they
> explicitly ask about that, as this guy did.

And do you suppose his interest is in the table itself, or the set of
data that the table contains?

> >> the ability to simply pass a set would make things enormously easier, faster, and cleaner - which is probably why they're including it in SQL 2008. <<
>
> Right now you can declare a huge number of parameters in a stored
> procedure -- more than enough for any practical situation. But
> programmers who grew up with BASIC and other interpreted languages
> seem to panic at the the thought of a long parameter list.

Clearly you did not understand the example I gave you. I wasn't
talking about passing many parameters, I was talking about passing one
parameter that can have many values. A drop-down list where the user
can select more than one value. In other words, a set. This is an
EXTREMELY common scenario in the real world.

Classroom coders who have little to no development experience in the
real world tend to panic at the thought of examples that are outside
of their limited experience :b

[Back to original message]