Hi gang:
<?php
echo str_repeat("Okay, I give up! ", 100);
?>
Miles said:
Why are we still chasing this thread?
No need to pursue this thread anymore -- I'll just address the
statements put to me.
Why does he even have to see gaps? Just present the info, unless he
wants to see the ID.
Miles, I think that's the best solution I've heard thus far -- thanks.
---
JM said:
If you don't care that a given record may have a different, unpredictable
record number each time its queried, and if you're sure no one is going to
inherit this application and be stymied by your unorthodox approach, and if
you know that in the future you will not need to access this data by a
static record number, it doesn't matter. Otherwise, my advice would be to
add a timestamp column and sort by that instead.
LOL -- I think you drove your point home -- thanks.
----
Anthony Ettinger said:
I think the main reason is fora more extensible design. Sure, you may
only have the 1 table now, and think you never will enhance your
functionality...but as soon as you do comes up with a new scenario,
you'll have to change the current behavior...easier to plan for that
ahead of time. Technically, it works the way you want it...there's no
right or wrong way, just degrees of flexibility, and it so happens
this method seems inflexible from what I gather.
Very good -- thanks.
---
Paul said:
It's simply -- concretely -- inefficient & inelegant to modify on
average half the records in a database simply in order to delete one
record, when queries give us fast, simple, READ-ONLY methods for
enumerating existing data.
Okay, I got the idea -- thank you.
You guys are great -- thanks for putting up with me. As Daniel Boone
once wrote: "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being
confused for several weeks."
tedd
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sperling.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
