August 6, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Commenting in Dynamic query
August 6, 2012 at 11:20 pm
So here i was thinking this was a rewrite of the question we had 2 questions ago, since this question had the varchar(50) on str4 which would have fixed a lot of the issues with the that question. But unfortunatly it wasnt. Instead # had been changed for @.
Besides what does this actually have to do with "Commenting in Dynamic query"?... nothing i tell you. The comments dont matter. This has more to do with "Scope".
First question was "interesting" if nothing else. This just bores me. Ah well... keep trying.
/T
August 7, 2012 at 12:36 am
I hate questions with missleading title. :angry:
August 7, 2012 at 12:37 am
Indeed!
I also saw this as a rewrite of the question a few days back. Didn't really catch the @/# difference in all the jpeg artifacts. :Whistling:
This question reminds me of the old questionnaire, where question 1 is just an order to read ALL the questions first, and the last question tells you to discard the intermediate questions, sign the paper and turn it in. People not reading carefully and obeying orders will most often answer all the question and get a little angry when they reach the bottom. But it WILL teach them to read the whole question carefully and not make assumptions.
But thanks anyway.
/Keld Laursen
August 7, 2012 at 12:38 am
Nice question, I was only focusing on the string concatenation and not the declaration.
/Håkan Winther
MCITP:Database Developer 2008
MCTS: SQL Server 2008, Implementation and Maintenance
MCSE: Data Platform
August 7, 2012 at 1:55 am
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
August 7, 2012 at 2:44 am
Stewart "Arturius" Campbell (8/7/2012)
That'll teach me to answer before my first cup of coffee....
Me too... 🙂
August 7, 2012 at 2:50 am
Great example of RTFQ!!:-)
August 7, 2012 at 3:33 am
tommyh (8/6/2012)
So here i was thinking this was a rewrite of the question we had 2 questions ago, since this question had the varchar(50) on str4 which would have fixed a lot of the issues with the that question. But unfortunatly it wasnt. Instead # had been changed for @.Besides what does this actually have to do with "Commenting in Dynamic query"?... nothing i tell you. The comments dont matter. This has more to do with "Scope".
First question was "interesting" if nothing else. This just bores me. Ah well... keep trying.
/T
+1
--Vadim R.
August 7, 2012 at 4:40 am
My first thought was "Here we go again!" but then I had my first cup of coffee and got it right!
August 7, 2012 at 4:43 am
BTW. I didn't get my email from SSC this morning. I had to go to the site directly.
August 7, 2012 at 4:47 am
Nice to have an easy one after yesterday!
August 7, 2012 at 5:29 am
rVadim (8/7/2012)
tommyh (8/6/2012)
So here i was thinking this was a rewrite of the question we had 2 questions ago, since this question had the varchar(50) on str4 which would have fixed a lot of the issues with the that question. But unfortunatly it wasnt. Instead # had been changed for @.Besides what does this actually have to do with "Commenting in Dynamic query"?... nothing i tell you. The comments dont matter. This has more to do with "Scope".
First question was "interesting" if nothing else. This just bores me. Ah well... keep trying.
/T
+1
+2 - This question has GOTCHA written all over it. While I admit I should have been more careful in reading the question, the question title and the way it changed the 45 to 50 seems purposefully designed to lead people to the conclusion that it's a rewritten/corrected reversion of last week's question. If your intent was to catch people not finely parsing the question, then you succeeded. (I can see the smirk on the OPs face when submitting the question.) At any rate, I do not like the spirit of the question.
[font="Verdana"]Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.[/font]
Connect to me on LinkedIn
August 7, 2012 at 5:36 am
Thomas Abraham (8/7/2012)
+2 - This question has GOTCHA written all over it. While I admit I should have been more careful in reading the question, the question title and the way it changed the 45 to 50 seems purposefully designed to lead people to the conclusion that it's a rewritten/corrected reversion of last week's question. If your intent was to catch people not finely parsing the question, then you succeeded. (I can see the smirk on the OPs face when submitting the question.) At any rate, I do not like the spirit of the question.
I just went back and read last week's question and all the inputs the OP received. Given the spanking that question got, it seems like this is an attempt to stick a finger back in the eye of people that criticized the first question. So, explain to me why there isn't a little malice behind this question, even if the OP doesn't realize it.
[font="Verdana"]Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.[/font]
Connect to me on LinkedIn
August 7, 2012 at 6:51 am
Took me a good while to catch the difference and so what the gotcha was, as I too thought a rewrite of friday's question! Pays to take some time and read the question.
Agree that I don't like the miss-leading title!
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply