С другим примером как
id: SERIAL
name: TEXT
enumerate_id: INT
SELECT id, name, enumerate_id
FROM enumerate p
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM enumerate c
WHERE c.enumerate_id = p.id
);
SELECT id, name, enumerate_id
FROM enumerate p
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM enumerate c
WHERE c.enumerate_id = p.id
);
Обратите внимание, что единственный, кто меняется, это
NOT
EXISTS
Надеюсь, это поможет
I would steer clear of assigning to this
in structs. As you can see from the other answers, the very possibility of it is fairly rarely known (I only know because of some weird situation where it turned up in the spec). Where you've got it, it doesn't do any good - and in other places it's likely to be mutating the struct, which is not a good idea. Structs should always be immutable :)
EDIT: Just to make people go "meep!" a little - assigning to this
isn't quite the same as just chaining to another constructor, as you can do it in methods too:
using System;
public struct Foo
{
// Readonly, so must be immutable, right?
public readonly string x;
public Foo(string x)
{
this.x = x;
}
public void EvilEvilEvil()
{
this = new Foo();
}
}
public class Test
{
static void Main()
{
Foo foo = new Foo("Test");
Console.WriteLine(foo.x); // Prints "Test"
foo.EvilEvilEvil();
Console.WriteLine(foo.x); // Prints nothing
}
}
Examples 2 and 3 are not legal C#.
EDIT: Jon points out accurately that 3 is legal when Foo
is a struct
. Go check out his answer!
No they will not because only the first constructor is actually legal. The other two are illegal for various reasons.
EDIT Interesting, 3 is indeed legal when Foo is a struct. But even in that case, it is a redundant assignment.