sunnie@lemmy.ca to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 9 months agono.. just nolemmy.caimagemessage-square82fedilinkarrow-up1539arrow-down119
arrow-up1520arrow-down1imageno.. just nolemmy.casunnie@lemmy.ca to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 9 months agomessage-square82fedilink
minus-squaremarcos@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·9 months agoWell, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk. Anyway, I’m really against the “having” tag. You need another keyword so that you can apply your filter after the group by?
minus-squareQuazarOmega@lemy.lollinkfedilinkarrow-up2·9 months ago Well, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk. That’s a good point, I didn’t even think about it, maybe a more functional style would make more sense?
minus-squarephysicswizard@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 months agoBoy then are you going to hate QUALIFY
minus-squaremarcos@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·9 months agoYes, I do. It’s a lot of effort and hidden functionality to try to paper over the fact that the statements do not compose.
Well, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk.
Anyway, I’m really against the “having” tag. You need another keyword so that you can apply your filter after the group by?
That’s a good point, I didn’t even think about it, maybe a more functional style would make more sense?
Boy then are you going to hate
QUALIFYYes, I do. It’s a lot of effort and hidden functionality to try to paper over the fact that the statements do not compose.