spelling fixes in the documaentation, sholud be gud now ;)

[dbsrgits/DBIx-Class.git] / lib / DBIx / Class / Storage / DBI / MSSQL.pm

diff --git a/lib/DBIx/Class/Storage/DBI/MSSQL.pm b/lib/DBIx/Class/Storage/DBI/MSSQL.pm
index 3ce11e6..6bdb027 100644 (file)
--- a/lib/DBIx/Class/Storage/DBI/MSSQL.pm
+++ b/lib/DBIx/Class/Storage/DBI/MSSQL.pm
@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ sub _select_args_to_query {
 
   # see if this is an ordered subquery
   my $attrs = $_[3];
-  if ( scalar $self->sql_maker->_order_by_chunks ($attrs->{order_by}) ) {
+  if ( scalar $self->_parse_order_by ($attrs->{order_by}) ) {
     $self->throw_exception(
       'An ordered subselect encountered - this is not safe! Please see "Ordered Subselects" in DBIx::Class::Storage::DBI::MSSQL
     ') unless $attrs->{unsafe_subselect_ok};
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ outright disabled for MSSQL.
 Thus compromise between usability and perfection is the MSSQL-specific
 L<resultset attribute|DBIx::Class::ResultSet/ATTRIBUTES> C<unsafe_subselect_ok>.
 It is deliberately not possible to set this on the Storage level, as the user
-should inspect (and preferrably regression-test) the return of every such
+should inspect (and preferably regression-test) the return of every such
 ResultSet individually. The example above would work if written like:
 
  $rs->search ({}, {
@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ ResultSet individually. The example above would work if written like:
 If it is possible to rewrite the search() in a way that will avoid the need
 for this flag - you are urged to do so. If DBIC internals insist that an
 ordered subselect is necessary for an operation, and you believe there is a
-differnt/better way to get the same result - please file a bugreport.
+different/better way to get the same result - please file a bugreport.
 
 =head1 AUTHOR