Peter Cooper Jr. on Fri, 8 Dec 2006 18:28:05 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-d] Proposal: you know you want 'em |
"Chuck Adams" <cja987@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I would SO much rather see all actions within a single forum post be > implicitly transactional unless otherwise specified. If I'm going to > write proposals in pseudocode, I don't want it to be SQL. I suppose that's another possibility, but transactions seemed odd enough that when I first introduced them that I figured I'd make their use explicit. But I wouldn't mind somebody proping to change that to be implicit, as long as there's a way to specify that you're okay with some parts working without others. And you don't need to use SQL, as long as the start and end of your transaction is clear. For instance, a statement as the top of your message saying "The rest of the message is one transaction" would suffice, I'm pretty sure. I just used SQL since that's what inspired me to think transactions could be useful. -- Peter C. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss