CASE statement syntax help

"--CELKO--" wrote in message
news:3a4b59d4-f724-4830-bb86-9ea4a92a3179-at-v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Thanks ever so much for your contribution. I have spent some
>>> considerable time trying to find a whiff of a hint of a germ of
>>> anything useful in it that helps to resolve my original question, and
>>> failed. <<
>
> All I asked was basic netiquette and pointed out that your design as
> described by narrative rather than DDL, has fundamental flaws.
> And then, by your own admission, you posted code with errors in it!!
>

No. The error I made (stupid, admittedly) was to test the procedure with a
parameter value that was invalid in my particular context.

>>> Fortunately, Eric helped me see the error of my ways a few days ago. <<
>
> As Steve pointed out, what you got was dangerous proprietary Kludge.

I took on board Steve's post, and Eric's reply to it.

>
>>> If, in any future questions I might ask here, my code doesn't follow
>>> your preferred standards, I apologize, but please feel free to totally
>>> ignore my posts if that that helps you. <<
>
> What I tried to teach you was *basic netiquette*

But *you* failed to quote what you were responding to. That's also basic
netiquette.

> and ISO standards.
> Also, a little about proper data modeling. Those things *are* my
> preferred standards, but they are also the preferred standards of this
> industry. If you would like to work in it, you might want to learn
> about them.

Please don't assume that everyone who asks for help here is a budding DBA.
I, for one, am not. I usually have access to a bunch of very good SQL
people who work with me, but was on leave when I needed a quick answer to
something which is purely a personal project of mine. I do not work with
SQL every day, nor will I.

>
> You might want to consider that I helped write the Standards for SQL
> and you are the guy who had to look up COALESCE(). Or you can keep
> trolling newsgroups for kludges instead of using them to learn your
> trade.

I know exactly who you are, Joe. And what you are all about. I ackowledge
that you are a very clever person, and have an awful lot invested in the
standards personally. Perhaps you might want to consider that I am not what
you assumed. All I need is to be able to get something done with a
technology I only have a passing need to use or know, and to understand it
so I can maintain it occasionally. My code will never be up for review by
anyone, or be seen by anyone (unless I am dead, in which case I don't care
what they think of it). I don't have time to learn all the standards, nor
the need.

It's *not* my trade.

Bravo!


"shuurai11-at-gmail.com" wrote in message
news:44dc237f-c46a-4d8a-b07d-237de7d23796-at-f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> > What I tried to teach you was *basic netiquette* and ISO standards.
>
>
> Since you have apparantly decided to take on the role of keeper of
> basic netiquette, can we assume that from now on you will:
>
> - Treat people with some respect instead of being arrogant and rude
> to everyone.
>
> - Actually post responses that are relevant to what they're asking -
> ex. when someone asks about how to do a join, you won't go into a
> three paragraph rant on how bad their table and column names are.
>
> - Actually try your code before hitting send to ensure that it runs,
> and that it runs on SQL Server.
>
> - Stop selectively adhering to standards.
>
> - Stop posting advice that has been clearly demonstrated as horribly
> inefficient - ex. the "thousands of parameters" argument.
>
> - Stop telling people that they're going to be thrown in jail for
> violating various laws despite not actually knowing if their databases
> are subject to those laws.
>
> - Stop shamelessly pimping your books at every opportunity.
>
> I for one look forward to seeing the "new" Celko.