[25344] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 7589 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue Dec 28 21:10:31 2004
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:10:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Tue, 28 Dec 2004 Volume: 10 Number: 7589
Today's topics:
Re: Is zero even or odd? <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dak@gnu.org>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dseaman@no.such.host>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dseaman@no.such.host>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dseaman@no.such.host>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <invalid@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de>
Re: Is zero even or odd? (Matthew Russotto)
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dseaman@no.such.host>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dseaman@no.such.host>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Re: Leak in Win32::ChangeNotify? <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca>
Re: Perl CGI script using Win::ODBC module - failed log <byoukstetter@hotmail.com>
Re: Perl CGI script using Win::ODBC module - failed log <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:08:26 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <uhn3t0h1kar5l2kbiu5dj5id3bgk5rt54k@4ax.com>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:13:54 -0000, "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:ms91t0dhjdf80j8l804mo2ic098gv2ndil@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:26:19 -0000, "George Dishman"
>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>Ok. In that you argue that, if you set the
>>>voltage and current numerically equal, then
>>>since the ratio is 1 for all values, it
>>>implies that it remains 1 for a numerical
>>>value of 0. His counter argument is that
>>>the choice of setting the values to be equal
>>>is arbitrary and it is just as valid to set
>>>the voltage to be, say, double that of the
>>>current hence by the same argument, 0/0=2.
>>>
>>>Since one can choose any ratio before taking
>>>the limit as both approach zero, the same
>>>argument can prove 0/0 to be equal to any
>>>arbitrary value, hence falsifying the claim
>>>that 0/0 has one and only one value.
>>>
>>>To refute his counter-argument and prove your
>>>claim that the value of 1 is unique, you need
>>>to provide a reason why the statement 0/0=2
>>>(or any value other than 1) cannot be true.
>>
>> ---
>> Very nice.
>>
>> For the normal order of precedence, my argument is that in order for
>> x/x = 1 to be true, the numerator and the denominator must both be
>> equal at the time of the division.
>
>So far you are assuming the result you are
>trying to prove, that the ratio of numerator
>and denominator is to be 1.
>
>> That is, for any set of x's where
>> x = x, x/x = 1. If that's true, and 0 = 0, then 0/0 must be equal to
>> 1. The proof is the proof of exhaustion.
>
>I like that however while the statement 0=0
>is obviously true, it isn't exhaustive. We
>also have
>
> 0 = k * 0
>
>hence by your method
>
> 0/0 = limit as x->0 of (k*x)/x
>
>hence
>
> 0/0 = k for all constant k
>
>You still fail to prove the claim of
>uniqueness for the value of 1.
---
Ah, but :-) the normal order of precedence dictates that the
multiplication be performed first, so my method first reduces k*0 to 0
by virtue of the multiplication, then the division by zero is
performed to yield the ratio of 1.
(k*0) -> 0
------ --- = 1
0 -> 0
Interestingly, your method also requires the quotient of 0/0 to be 1,
otherwise the multiplication by k wouldn't yield k as the product!
--
John Fields
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:08:28 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <7pp3t09v108qfavgb0tukth2ereqnh6dft@4ax.com>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:21:18 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman
<dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:
>The Macintosh calculator returns 1. So do most Hewlett-Packard calculators
>that I have tried, and at least one by Texas Instruments that I can recall.
>Likewise Maple and MATLAB (but not Mathematica).
You rely on a computer? How slipshod.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:10:43 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <mup3t0tig2gna14i0l39o90ol9ua8ii2hl@4ax.com>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman
<dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:
>I take it you haven't been reading the thread, since I have given several
>mathematical arguments and provided references to support the conclusion
>that 0^0 = 1.
None of which have been accepted.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:15:07 +0100
From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <x5is6mxbes.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman
> <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:
>
>>I take it you haven't been reading the thread, since I have given several
>>mathematical arguments and provided references to support the conclusion
>>that 0^0 = 1.
>
> None of which have been accepted.
So you think the polynomial 2 x^2 + 3 x^1 + 4 x^0 is undefined at x=0 ?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:19:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <cqspm7$ueu$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:23:49 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>
> But for me that is not the issue. I do not LIE on newsgroups - there is
> no point - but I do make mistakes; everyone does. I suggest that your
> accusation of 'lying' was, and is, unjustified, whether my post was
> correct or not correct.
It is no more unjustified than your false claim that I "just want to win
the argument, come what may." I do not base my facts on my opinions, and
I strongly resent any implication to the contrary. I have endeavored to
stick to the mathematics in this discussion.
It seems that there have been interpretation issues on both sides, and
each of us has reacted by drawing unjustified conclusions. For my part,
I am sorry that I spoke in haste. However, I hope you will recognize
that you are not without blame.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:21:43 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <cqspq6$ueu$2@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:50:45 GMT, vonroach wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:46:05 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>But 0^0 does exist and has nothing to do with limits.
>>
>>0^0 can be defined by convention, of course, as is 0 factorial.
> No you can't go that route either.
0 factorial is an empty product, and therefore equal to 1.
0^0 is an empty product, and therefore equal to 1.
The same argument also shows that empty sums are equal to 0.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <cqsq5m$ueu$3@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:01:17 GMT, vonroach wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:51:12 -0800, "Alfred Z. Newmane"
><a.newmane.remove@eastcoastcz.com> wrote:
>>2^0 = 1
>>1^0 = 1
>>0^0 = ERROR, DOMAIN (hence the limit)
>>(-1)^0 = 1
>>(-2)^0 = 1
> (-1^1/2)^0 =?
> or ( i )^0 =?
i^0 = exp(0*log(i)) = exp(0) = 1,
where log(i) is multivalued (= i*pi/2 + 2*n*pi*i), but it doesn't
particularly matter which value you choose. And (-i)^0 = 1 by similar
analysis.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:32:57 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <uhq3t0514jriqtlqtn4j1a76j55v5if0dj@4ax.com>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:17:14 GMT, vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:32:56 -0500, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
>wrote:
>>Well, that wipes out all the math I ever learned. I guess all that calc
>>I took in college was for naught.
>>
>>Lemme guess... You're a math type posting from sci.math.
>
>No, he's making it up as he goes along. The limit called for is a very
>small number greater than 1/0 which is meaningless and undefined.
>What problem called for this math abstraction? There is a practical
>limit on how small `things' can get - beyond that limit,, one is just
>blowing smoke through one's butthole. These are the uncertainties that
>we live with.
---
1/0 is a small number?
If
1
y = lim x->0 ---
x
Then it seems to me like y gets pretty big when x gets pretty small!
--
John Fields
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:00:00 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <3rs3t0141af1kfft6mksu30lo46hlooff3@4ax.com>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:48:23 GMT, vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:05:22 -0600, John Fields
><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
>>How comforting it must be for you to know that somewhere, on a dusty
>>old bookrack, lies a little book which releases you from the drudgery
>>of thinking.
>>
>
>>John Fields
>Sorry Johnny if you are going to indulge in abstractions, you have to
>observe the rules.
---
Bray on...
--
John Fields
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:06:32 +0100
From: Michael Mendelsohn <invalid@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <41D1F508.8CACD111@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de>
John Fields schrieb:
> Ah, but :-) the normal order of precedence dictates that the
> multiplication be performed first, so my method first reduces k*0 to 0
> by virtue of the multiplication, then the division by zero is
> performed to yield the ratio of 1.
>
> (k*0) -> 0
> ------ --- = 1
> 0 -> 0
>
> Interestingly, your method also requires the quotient of 0/0 to be 1,
> otherwise the multiplication by k wouldn't yield k as the product!
So (k*0)/0 is not equal to k*(0/0), then?
What a pity!
To defend your point, you have to abandon the associative law of
multiplication.
Cheers
Michael
--
Still an attentive ear he lent Her speech hath caused this pain
But could not fathom what she meant Easier I count it to explain
She was not deep, nor eloquent. The jargon of the howling main
-- from Lewis Carroll: The Three Usenet Trolls
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:49:00 -0600
From: russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <JaGdnS1D3vxhY0zcRVn-3A@speakeasy.net>
In article <cqs0gk$gpp$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>,
Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:46:05 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <cqqp1n$rgb$2@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>,
>> Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:58:35 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>> In article <t4rss0duo9eho2urcsibtq302e3s3edqkr@4ax.com>,
>>>> vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:46:25 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>0^0 is a mess in either system.
>>>>>
>>>>>A meaningless mess. As Pauli might say `it isn't even wrong'. And
>>>>>Heisenberg would add a `pile of crap'.
>>>
>>>> Well, 0^0 is a mess. But lim x->0 0^x is well defined.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't. That limit does not exist.
>
>> Most certainly does. It's zero.
>
>Wrong. That limit cannot exist because 0^x is undefined for all x < 0.
Doesn't matter; you can find a delta for every epsilon.
>>>But 0^0 does exist and has nothing to do with limits.
>
>> 0^0 can be defined by convention, of course, as is 0 factorial.
>
>I consider it to be something more than a mere convention. In Suppes:
>_Axiomatic Set Theory_, it's a *theorem* that m^0 = 1 for every cardinal
>m. Since 0 is a cardinal, the corollary is that 0^0 = 1. Specifically,
>it represents the cardinality of the set of mappings from the empty set
>to itself.
>
>A corollary is the very antithesis of a "convention."
If there was a proof, one which doesn't depend on a contrived meaning
for exponentiation, I'd agree with you. But then, there wouldn't have
been such a controversy if there was such a proof.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:17:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <cqt0k1$2jl$2@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:08:28 GMT, vonroach wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:21:18 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman
><dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:
>>The Macintosh calculator returns 1. So do most Hewlett-Packard calculators
>>that I have tried, and at least one by Texas Instruments that I can recall.
>>Likewise Maple and MATLAB (but not Mathematica).
> You rely on a computer? How slipshod.
I rely on the mathematical arguments I have previously posted with references
to recognized authoritative authors (Suppes, Lang, and the sci.math FAQ).
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:24:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <cqt10m$2jl$3@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:49:00 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <cqs0gk$gpp$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>,
> Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:46:05 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <cqqp1n$rgb$2@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>,
>>> Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:58:35 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>>> In article <t4rss0duo9eho2urcsibtq302e3s3edqkr@4ax.com>,
>>>>> vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:46:25 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, 0^0 is a mess. But lim x->0 0^x is well defined.
>>>>No, it isn't. That limit does not exist.
>>> Most certainly does. It's zero.
>>Wrong. That limit cannot exist because 0^x is undefined for all x < 0.
> Doesn't matter; you can find a delta for every epsilon.
Not true. In fact, you cannot find a single delta that works for *any*
epsilon > 0. I'll let you choose any epsilon you like. You still lose.
>>>>But 0^0 does exist and has nothing to do with limits.
>>> 0^0 can be defined by convention, of course, as is 0 factorial.
>>I consider it to be something more than a mere convention. In Suppes:
>>_Axiomatic Set Theory_, it's a *theorem* that m^0 = 1 for every cardinal
>>m. Since 0 is a cardinal, the corollary is that 0^0 = 1. Specifically,
>>it represents the cardinality of the set of mappings from the empty set
>>to itself.
>>A corollary is the very antithesis of a "convention."
> If there was a proof, one which doesn't depend on a contrived meaning
> for exponentiation, I'd agree with you. But then, there wouldn't have
> been such a controversy if there was such a proof.
This is not a contrived meaning of exponentiation. It's the standard
definition for a^b where a and b are cardinal numbers, and this is a
necessary first step before extending the definition to more general
situations.
Consider 2^3, for example. It's the cardinality of the set of mappings
from the set { 0, 1, 2 } to the set { 0, 1 }, which is 8.
Besides, there is also the definition from algebra, in which x^n is
defined whenever x is a member of a monoid M and n is a natural number.
In particular, x^0 = e, the identity in M.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:37:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: George Cox <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <41D20A6C.A8BAA687@spambtinternet.com.invalid>
John Fields wrote:
>
> 1/0 is a small number?
>
> If
>
> 1
> y = lim x->0 ---
> x
>
> Then it seems to me like y gets pretty big when x gets pretty small!
You're confused. If y = 1/x then y gets pretty big when x gets pretty
small.
1
But if y = lim x->0 --- then y doesn't exist.
x
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:41:23 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <srv3t01q6ok5j292ck3sh10m6t6aam7ntb@4ax.com>
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:06:32 +0100, Michael Mendelsohn
<invalid@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de> wrote:
>John Fields schrieb:
>> Ah, but :-) the normal order of precedence dictates that the
>> multiplication be performed first, so my method first reduces k*0 to 0
>> by virtue of the multiplication, then the division by zero is
>> performed to yield the ratio of 1.
>>
>> (k*0) -> 0
>> ------ --- = 1
>> 0 -> 0
>>
>> Interestingly, your method also requires the quotient of 0/0 to be 1,
>> otherwise the multiplication by k wouldn't yield k as the product!
>
>So (k*0)/0 is not equal to k*(0/0), then?
---
Obviously, but no matter.
Consider:
If my point is that 0/0 = 1, and if k*(0/0)=k then 0/0 _must_ be
equal to 1, otherwise k would not be equal to k. That, I believe,
proves my point, my point being:
x
y = lim x->0 --- = 1
x
---
>What a pity!
>To defend your point, you have to abandon the associative law of
>multiplication.
---
Not at all, since (k*0)/0 and k*(0/0) both [seem to] prove that
0/0 = 1.
--
John Fields
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:53:07 -0600
From: John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <l234t0ptrf9vls2vcc1etmgjmqjd84k7sa@4ax.com>
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:37:39 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
<george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>>
>> 1/0 is a small number?
>>
>> If
>>
>> 1
>> y = lim x->0 ---
>> x
>>
>> Then it seems to me like y gets pretty big when x gets pretty small!
>
>You're confused.
---
Yeah, probably.
I was trying to express x going to zero in the limit. Is my notation
wrong?
> If y = 1/x then y gets pretty big when x gets pretty small.
>
>
> 1
>But if y = lim x->0 --- then y doesn't exist.
> x
---
Then what would be the proper way to write it, please?
--
John Fields
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:56:30 -0500
From: "Matt Garrish" <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Leak in Win32::ChangeNotify?
Message-Id: <0hnAd.21274$nV.648716@news20.bellglobal.com>
"Thomas Kratz" <ThomasKratz@REMOVEwebCAPS.de> wrote in message
news:41d170e7$0$776$bb690d87@news.main-rheiner.de...
> The code below is a simple example of using Win32::ChangeNotify. AFAIK
> this is how it should be used according to the docs.
> If you run this you will see a steady increase in the used nonpage pool
> memory of the perl process in the Win32 performance monitor (Category
> 'Process', counter 'Pool Nonpaged Bytes'). Changing the file will result
> in the notification message printed to screen as well as in more memory
> leaking. After the second change it will go berserk and if you don't
> terminate the process quickly it will eat up all the systems nonpaged pool
> memory and thus cause serious trouble elsewhere in the system.
>
> Moving the object creation into the while loop and deleting the line with
> '$notify->reset()' works around the problem.
>
> Can somebody confirm this? If yes I will file a bug report on rt.cpan.org.
>
Strange. The first time I ran the script the nonpaged memory slowly grew
(nothing like what you describe, though). I let it run up from ~10100K to
~11500K before killing script (at which point it dropped right back to where
it started), but on subsequent restarts could not get the script to leak
again (it stayed steady at ~10100 no matter what I did to the file).
This was on XP Pro using v5.8.2.
Matt
------------------------------
Date: 28 Dec 2004 15:21:51 -0800
From: "brandony" <byoukstetter@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Perl CGI script using Win::ODBC module - failed login on
Message-Id: <1104276111.242977.35880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Matt Garrish wrote:
> A lot depends on what type of database you're trying to connect to.
MySQL
> allows you to store the username and password for the DSN, but others
like
> MS SQL require login information to be supplied when you establish
the
> connection. The only thing I can suggest is that you try a newsgroup
that
> deals with your particular database. The problem itself is language
agnostic
> and ODBC specific, as you'd run into the same problem connecting to
the
> database regardless of which language you're using (which is why
you're
> getting a system error and not a perl error).
>
> Matt
Matt,
Well ok, I am using MS SQL. So, I must provide my login credentials in
the perl script in this case? Are you sure? Because that sucks if
true. Can you direct me to any specific resource dealing with this
issue.
Thanks again for your feedback.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:32:41 -0500
From: "Matt Garrish" <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Perl CGI script using Win::ODBC module - failed login on
Message-Id: <HWmAd.21028$nV.645132@news20.bellglobal.com>
"brandony" <byoukstetter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104276111.242977.35880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Matt Garrish wrote:
>
>> A lot depends on what type of database you're trying to connect to.
> MySQL
>> allows you to store the username and password for the DSN, but others
> like
>> MS SQL require login information to be supplied when you establish
> the
>> connection. The only thing I can suggest is that you try a newsgroup
> that
>> deals with your particular database. The problem itself is language
> agnostic
>> and ODBC specific, as you'd run into the same problem connecting to
> the
>> database regardless of which language you're using (which is why
> you're
>> getting a system error and not a perl error).
>>
> Well ok, I am using MS SQL. So, I must provide my login credentials in
> the perl script in this case? Are you sure? Because that sucks if
> true. Can you direct me to any specific resource dealing with this
> issue.
>
Don't quote me on MS SQL. I only access one MS SQL database, and it's not
for the web. You may be able to configure access to the database for the
iusr account in MS SQL (and by switching the login option in the ODBC
manager to Windows NT Authentication), but having never done so I can't
really be of any further assistance to you.
Matt
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V10 Issue 7589
***************************************
