• Info Man (unregistered)

    Hey, where's today's WTF? I see Nothing!

  • Izzy (unregistered) in reply to Info Man
    Info Man:
    Hey, where's today's WTF? I see Nothing!

    Maybe that is the WTF for today...?!

  • (cs) in reply to Info Man
    Info Man:
    Hey, where's today's WTF? I see Nothing!

    What are you talking about? It's right here: http://thedailywtf.com/rickroll.aspx.

  • (cs)

    Can we all at least agree that there's nothing wrong with the procedure?

  • (cs) in reply to Vitrix

    If you came from nothing and went back to nothing, then you certainly didn't LOSE nothing. Therefore, you lost something other than nothing, in other words, you lost something.

    What that is is an exercise for the reader.

  • (cs) in reply to smxlong
    smxlong:
    If you came from nothing and went back to nothing, then you certainly didn't LOSE nothing. Therefore, you lost something other than nothing, in other words, you lost something.

    What that is is an exercise for the reader.

    Oh, oh, I've got it! It's on the tip of my tongue...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    No, I lost it.

  • the man behind the curtain (unregistered)

    The real WTF is that there wasn't a WTF today.

    Has the brilliant Paula Bean passed away? (Or has she just left IT?) Has Codethulu - and all its appendages - been destroyed? All public temperature signs are finally using Earth units instead of Martian ones? Tables - both wooden and database - have been properly dealt with?

    Everything is as it should be in IT? No more TDWTF? sigh

    /me goes off to create some awful WTF's to keep things going

  • (cs)

    I get nothing to say here.

  • sctulu (unregistered) in reply to smxlong
    smxlong:
    If you came from nothing and went back to nothing, then you certainly didn't LOSE nothing. Therefore, you lost something other than nothing, in other words, you lost something.

    What that is is an exercise for the reader.

    Word play.
  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to smxlong
    smxlong:
    If you came from nothing and went back to nothing, then you certainly didn't LOSE nothing. Therefore, you lost something other than nothing, in other words, you lost something.

    What that is is an exercise for the reader.

    Nothing lasts but nothing is lost.
  • (cs) in reply to Anonymously Yours
    Anonymously Yours:
    Bodestone:
    method1:
    smilr:
    Someone like Kevin:
    This raises the question: Can you have an END without a BEGIN?
    FTFY
    Nice one
    Yes, I am very surprised it took until half way down page 2 of the comments before anyone noticed that the SQL would not even parse.
    That is most likely an error by the guy who sent this in recreating what he'd seen. He couldn't have found this exact code in the database because MS SQL Server won't save SQL for a stored proc unless it parses. It must have been parsed successfully and turned into a stored proc but rewritten here wrong. Otherwise it'd be irrelevant that the code calls this procedure...

    ... well... unless functionality was dependent upon the exception being thrown by code calling a stored proc that doesn't exist and the author found this code in a script with SA access, both of which are exponentially WTFier. I'm more willing to believe this was a writing error.

    Or it was all just made up of course.

  • (cs) in reply to arms
    arms:
    Vitrix:
    Once a great philosopher said:

    You know, you come from nothing, you're going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!

    Eric Idle?

    Right you are :)

  • G D Milner (unregistered)

    I just hope this person did all the proper unit tests on this before deploying it to production!

  • Cathasach (unregistered) in reply to campkev

    There is nothing grammatically incorrect the sentence. It is a misuse of the phrase "begs the question", but it is grammatically sound.

  • Anone (unregistered) in reply to ORA
    ORA:
    And also....

    (splitting hairs perhaps) if they were both equivalent then '=' and 'is' shoul.d be able to used interchangeably.

    No? Null isn't equal to anything, including Null, and there would certainly not be an exception for ''. That you get different results in your testing using null = '' compared to '' is null is completely expected, and you will get the same result if you use null = null as you did when using null = ''.

Leave a comment on “sp_getNothing”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article