Re: Resultset Object

[Jason Pincin <jpincin@ashtech.net>]

Actually.... I think it was recordset and I changed it to resultset because I
thought it made more sense.  Recordset implied you had records returned...
resultset implied just that there was a result (such as in an update).  The only
time records are returned is in a "select".

So lets just leave it for now.  :)  There's a good bit of code using that name and
neither is all that much better than the other as you said.  

And lets give ccrider a hand for making it work in all scenarios.  

Jason



On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 11:05:05AM -0400, Daniel E. Markle wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 10:59:03AM -0400, Jason Pincin wrote:
> > Damn... now I'm getting confused :).  Whatever it is called now is what we were
> > planning on keeping it unles someone thinks another name makes more sense.  Lemme
> 
> It is resultset now, which you said made no sense for anything but SELECTs.
> You had said about changing it to recordset since that made more sense for all
> SQL statements.  I would have to agree.  It doesn't really matter, though, as
> long as you don't change it later.
> 
> -- 
> -------------------
> Daniel E. Markle
> syntax@ashtech.net
> -------------------