Re: EXECUTE ... SELECT COUNT(*) ... INTO ?

In <32ABA247.61D9@sprynet.com> Jake Salomon <jsalomon@sprynet.com> writes: >> >> Ugly, but functional. >it's a lot more than "ugly but functional". This is *the* way to >accomplish your purpose. This is explicitly documented (I don;t have >the manuals in front of me) as the only way to run a prepared SELECT >statement. Cursor/fetch for any statement that is expected to return >data. (select, EXECUTE PROCEDURE that returns data) You have no reason >to complain about that. You are correct because that's the way it works. But when I saw the following in the SQL syntax guide V7.1 (Pg 1-251)... "The INTO clause [of the EXECUTE statement] provides a concise and efficient alternative to using more complicated and lengthy syntax... ...if you use the INTO clause, you do not have to use the PREPARE, DECLARE, OPEN and FETCH sequence of statements to retrieve values from a table" Fairly cut and dried, and to my mind, making a lot of sense for singleton SELECTs. But it doesn't work (at least in 4gl). >However, I have hated the -4373 message since the first day I saw it! >YUCHH! SO exquisitely meaninless!! ;-)) No argument there. Personally, I'm in favour of just one error number that covers all possibilities. Something like "Error -1. You stuffed it." Bryan Tonnet batonnet@zeta.org.au