keyword

I want to name one of my tables as ORDER . Can I to use in SQL keywords as names? How bad is this practice? Whether to do so? And if such situation already exists then how do I use name of this table in queries? For example, I want: SELECT * FROM ORDER; or SELECT * FROM ORDER ORDER BY NAME; wrap the tableName with backtick as ORDER is a reserved keyword. SELECT * FROM `ORDER` ORDER BY NAME; MySQL Reserved Keywords List In my own opinion, using reserved keywords are fine except that you do not forget to handle it properly as it will give you such pain in the neck. But through the years of

For some reason, the developers at a new company I'm working for decided to name their columns "ignore" and "exists". Now when I run MySQL queries with those words in the where clause, I get a syntax error; however, I can't seem to figure out how to reference those columns without running into an error. I tried setting them as strings, but that doesn't make any sense. Help? Also, is there a term for this kind of mismatch? put the names in backticks: `ignore`, `exists` If you're working across multiple tables or databases you need to escape the database name, table name, and field name

I've seen some websites highlight the search engine keywords you used, to reach the page. (such as the keywords you typed in the Google search listing) How does it know what keywords you typed in the search engine? Does it examine the referrer HTTP header or something? Any available scripts that can do this? It might be server-side or JavaScript, I'm not sure. This can be done either server-side or client-side. The search keywords are determined by looking at the HTTP Referer (sic) header. In JavaScript you can look at document.referrer . Once you have the referrer, you check to see if it's a

I know the AND word defines binary and ... but what defines logical and ? The same word, AND , is also used for logical and . But the two input values to AND are recommended to be well-formed flags ; true and false are represented by two values, bits all set (-1) and bits all unset (0). Other values than these may work as true (as in C), but may lead to subtle errors. All comparison operators return well-formed flags, but for instance - does not. The following evaluates to false (0). 7 5 - 7 3 - AND AND gets bit patterns 100 and 010. The result is 0 (as it does the bitwise and ). References:

I'm currently delving into Fortran and I've come across the pure keyword specifying functions/subroutines that have no side effects. I have a book, Fortran 90/95 by S Chapman which introduces the pure keyword but strangely provides no "good coding practice" uses. I'm wondering how liberally one should use this keyword in their procedures. Just by looking around it's obvious to me that most procedures without side effects don't find it necessary to include the pure keyword. So where is it best used? Only in procedures one wants to completely guarantee have no side effects? Or perhaps in

Can we write abstract keyword in C++ class? #define abstract DevSolar No. Pure virtual functions, in C++, are declared as: class X { public: virtual void foo() = 0; }; Any class having at least one of them is considered abstract. No, C++ has no keyword abstract. However, you can write pure virtual functions ; that's the C++ way of expressing abstract classes. It is a keyword introduced as part of the C++/CLI language spefication for the .NET framework. no, you need to have at least one pure virtual function in a class to be abstract. Here is a good reference cplusplus.com As others point out,

This question already has an answer here: With block equivalent in C#? 15 answers I was looking at the online help for the Infragistics control library today and saw some VB code that used the With keyword to set multiple properties on a tab control. It's been nearly 10 years since I've done any VB programming, and I had all but forgotten that this keyword even existed. Since I'm still relatively new to C#, I quickly went to see if it had a similar construct. Sadly, I haven't been able to find anything. Does C# have a keyword or similar construct to mimic the functionality provided by the With