>>>>DO'OH!
>>>>
>>>>I knew it was one of those "Can't see the wood for the trees" occasions.
>>>>
>>>>I've scrutinized each line and STILL didn't spot it. I know how it happened. I copied the select clause from a similar SQL, and deleted the last line for this, but forgot the comma.
>>>>
>>>>Well done you eagle-eyed people.
>>>
>>>Eagle eyed? Yeah, right... it's just an illusion. I've spotted it right away simply because the same thing bit me dozens of times. Which is why I use Fabio's syntax, which is far easier:
>>
>>So has it bitten me many times, but I just couldn't see it. It's like an author and a proof-reader (BTW, from the verb "to prove" as in "test"),. Sometimes typos still get through to the printed book. A fresh pair of eyes ...
>
>Oh... this brings some memories. We (as a small software company) were helping a fledgling local independent newspaper once... which meant that I spent six consecutive Sundays in the office with a bunch of reporters and editors, fixing their typos and getting whatever they typed into a DTP style (Ventura 3, IIRC) edition... which would eventually be printed on laser, glued together for the large format desired, and then taken to the printshop in Belgrade. Which would be Monday 6:30 AM, when we'd wish the boss good luck with getting it printed (on time, no screwups on their end etc etc). At around 7, the programmers would start coming in, and we'd still have the big central desk covered with the printouts. One of the guy was a trained proofreader, because his brother ran a small print shop, and he'd just come in, cast a casual glance over the printouts, and point a finger at a glaring typo in a 24px headline on front page... which nobody saw whole night. Hey, we got the texts near perfect, a headline here and there can be forgiven, eh?
>
>(sorry for deja vu if I told this before... but I had no idea which words I used last time; faster to retype than to search ;)

I don't recall your telling that before. Did I this?:

I used to teach IT (WP, S/S, DTP, Access) to secretarial students. Once I was invigilating a Pitmans WP exam and, at a cursory passing glance, I could spot at least 3 errors on 1 student's paper. She and a friend finished before time and asked if they could leave. Now I wasn't supposed to give any feedback but we were on a friendly basis. I settled for "you may, of course, but if I were you I'd use the time to check my papers". They both did and later thankfully informed me that they'd spotted umpteen errors besides those I'd spotted.

I was used to marking their mock exams and spotting all the errors (i liked to think) without the answer book.

Yet I can't properly proof-read a single SQL statement of my own when I know what I'm looking for!

>
>>>

select field1;
>>>   ,   field2 ;
>>>   ,   field3 ;
>>>   ,   field4 ;
>>>   ,   field5 ;
>>>...

>>
>>The above I find ugly and confusing
>
>Just like oral, a matter of taste. Seemed ridiculous and even preposterous to me the first time, but when I compared the properties of this against the classic way, my prejudice just melted.