Subject RE: [IB-Architect] re - ODS changes
Author Helen Borrie
At 03:11 AM 20-11-00 -0200, you wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 02:38:06 +1100, Helen Borrie wrote:
> >At 05:43 PM 11-11-00 -0200, you wrote:
> >>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:23:54 -0700, David Berg wrote:
> >>
> >>Yes, but I prefer TOP <n> syntax. It's part of SQL standard (if I am
> >>wrong, Diane certainly will flame me ;-) ) .
> >>So, why we don't try to follow the standard... LIMIT <n> appear to be a
> >>PostGRE and MySQL specific keyword...
> >>My vote is to follow toward of the standard.
> >>
> >
> >According to my book on SQL-92 standards, neither TOP nor LIMIT is standard
> >SQL.
><kidding hat on>
>Hmmm... A failure on my perfect memory? :-) This mean that I have to
>change that
>skinny Paradox and upgrade to Interbase as a mental information manager...
>version you suggest? ;)
><kidding hat off>
>I remember some time ago ( in MERS list) Diane referenced this on SQL 3, not

Maybe so, maybe not...but SQL 3 is not a published standard, is it?

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

All for Open and Open for All
InterBase Developer Initiative ยท