On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:50:31 +1100, Helen Borrie wrote:

>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...
>>What
>>version you suggest? ;)
>><kidding hat off>
>>I remember some time ago ( in MERS list) Diane referenced this on SQL 3, not
>>SQL-92.
>
>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."

You're fantastic... ;-) Said everything in a period.
Hmmm... Back to lurkering for a while... ;-))))


[]s Fabricio
Delphi C/S Developer