The SQL grammar given in O'Reilly's "lex & yacc" book requires that
SELECT statements include the 'INTO' clause:

SELECT foo, bar INTO :baz FROM noodle;

A very cursory look at the SQL standard leads me to believe that this
is correct -- that the INTO is a required element. However, it's
common to give queries of the sort

SELECT foo FROM bar;

or even

(SELECT foo FROM bar) UNION (SELECT baz FROM fraz);

Are these not valid SQL statements because they would return multiple
rows of data, or ... ?

Tobin

fricke (AT) gmail (DOT) com (tobin fricke) wrote in message news:<732840b1.0407201720.164ab8a1 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...

That is a singleton select statement and it is a special case of
embedded SQL. Get another book for details.

fricke (AT) gmail (DOT) com (tobin fricke) wrote in message news:<732840b1.0407201720.164ab8a1 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...
I don't have a copy of the standard, just a summary reference. It
doesn't specify the INTO at all. So AFAIK the syntax is
SELECT <value expression> FROM...

and nothing in the section defining <value expression> mentions the
INTO clause. Perhaps your quick look only included the Embedded SQL
section? That's the only time I expect to use the INTO clause, ie in
embedding SQL in another language like C.

Joe should be along soon to straighten us out. meanwhile, I'd suggest
a closer look. Those database implementors can't ALL be wrong.

Ed