tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post4366856735697351158..comments2023-06-18T16:15:22.432+01:00Comments on PL/SQL Challenge: "Extraneous Info" strikes again - mistake confirmed for 27 July 2010(1261)Steven Feuersteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16619706770920320550noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post-80775310816826385602010-07-29T09:54:09.267+01:002010-07-29T09:54:09.267+01:00I still argue argue that it is an "extraneous...I still argue argue that it is an "extraneous info" - as if it is omitted the question becomes unambiguous.al0https://www.blogger.com/profile/15743792964167204705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post-23683554579829043152010-07-28T17:37:37.839+01:002010-07-28T17:37:37.839+01:00Good point, John. But people have to be able to in...Good point, John. But people have to be able to interpret the question "literally" - all they have to work with are the words in the quiz. So that is my responsibility: to make sure that the conceptual and literal interpretations are not in conflict.<br /><br />SFSteven Feuersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16619706770920320550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post-91925073907429125072010-07-28T17:10:52.716+01:002010-07-28T17:10:52.716+01:00This is less a case of "extraneous info"...This is less a case of "extraneous info" and more an instance of wording that is insufficiently precise. I interpreted the "in place of" phrasing as a reference to the concept of using a function as a source of rows. Others apparently construed it as prescribing the literal replacement of a table or view name with an unadorned function invocation. The required use of the TABLE operator does not alter the conceptual reading, but it definitely affects the literal view.jhall62https://www.blogger.com/profile/10339038131928463003noreply@blogger.com