Ole,

<< The ORDER BY clause should work directly on the result of processing the
query expression. The "CustName" column is belonging to the cursor/result
set (albeit derived from the "Orders"."CustCompany" and
"Invoices"."CompanyName" source columns in the query expression), and is
therefore a valid and highly logical sort specification. I also think that
SQL:2003/2008 alllows source column references in the sort specification. >>

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here ?  IOW, what new piece of
information are you trying to convey ?  EDB allows for both correlation
names and source column expressions in ORDER BY and GROUP BY expressions
(and HAVING).

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Tim,

<< I'm not quite sure what you're saying here ?  IOW, what new piece of
information are you trying to convey ?  EDB allows for both correlation
names and source column expressions in ORDER BY and GROUP BY expressions
(and HAVING). >>

I might have misread David's original post. I thought he said that the
following sort specification:

ORDER BY CustName

did not work. And if I'm able to read his query expression correctly at all,
"CustName" is a result set column.

Ole Willy Tuv

> I might have misread David's original post. I thought he said that
> the following sort specification:
>
> ORDER BY CustName
>
> did not work. And if I'm able to read his query expression correctly
> at all, "CustName" is a result set column.

Yes, that's exactly correct.

--
David Cornelius
CorneliusConcepts.com

Ole,

<< I might have misread David's original post. I thought he said that the
following sort specification:

ORDER BY CustName

did not work. And if I'm able to read his query expression correctly at
all, "CustName" is a result set column. >>

Correct, but I never indicated that it wasn't supposed to work.  I am still
looking into the issue.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com