From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Weakness of Ada is expensive / security / etc. ? Anything else?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:12:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <monq7n$594$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1npnbotrqohbb$.cj0by0oyo31r$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <momffm$9l9$1@dont-email.me> <1gd0gija14183.15myz6cud3dc9.dlg@40tude.net>
 <monf7m$s2h$1@dont-email.me> <1hnmt53q1lopg$.6mgo90i4enn7$.dlg@40tude.net>
Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:11:03 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="b96887e80893c84a90c3007226ca0d1c";
	logging-data="5412"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rWDxDiit+LFDbWbxHq8wpLmQGFmI9RI4="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
In-Reply-To: <1hnmt53q1lopg$.6mgo90i4enn7$.dlg@40tude.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KMltBIutqvUEJtOJ8RaUr9JW2Qg=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:26970
Date: 2015-07-22T12:12:33+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 22.07.15 09:37, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:04:57 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> On 22.07.15 08:13, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:01:26 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ODBC does the job. There is no serious
>>>>> reasons to use DB-specific bindings.
>>>> try quoting a name portably.
>>> Never use literals, always bind variables.
>>>
>> Can you portably use ODBC like this:
>>
>>     SELECT ... FROM ? WHERE ...
>>
>> instead of:
>>
>>     SELECT ... FROM "T" WHERE ...
>>     SELECT ... FROM `T` WHERE ...
>>     SELECT ... FROM [T] WHERE ...
>
> Yes.

Interesting.

As I, and many others, tend to see syntax errors or other
errors when a statement having ? in a place of a table's
name is sent via ODBC, I'm sure many would like to see how.