--- In IB-Architect@egroups.com, "Ann W. Harrison" <harrison@n...>
wrote:

> At 07:56 AM 12/10/2000 -0500, Doug Chamberlin wrote:
>
> >I think you could make a case for having NULLs always trail the

non-NULL

> >values in a result set, regardless of the requested sort order of

the

> >result set. While I can see the logic of thinking of NULL as a

value which

> >has a collation order, I can also see the logic of treating them as

"and we

> >also have these records which were produced but they don't quite

fit in so

> >we are sending them along at the end".
>
> Logic has little to do with SQL and where Firebird uses standard SQL

syntax,

> we should use standard SQL semantics. Extensions are another issue.

Two comments:
1. I agree with Ann. (As if that matters, or would come as a big
surprise to anyone ...)

2. Whatever SQL may lack in [quality of] logic, it more than makes up
for in [quantity of] rules. Whoever is going to be evaluating bugs and
enhancements maybe ought to have some vague idea about what SQL rules
say is correct (and/or legitimate) behaviour in various situations.
Not that you necessarily have to follow SQL rules, but it should at
least be a conscious decision if you are not going to follow them.
Just a thought.

(Besides, I'd expect the result of combining SQL standard syntax with
your own rules for semantics would be an unattractive syntax with
unexpected behaviour ... seems like a lose-lose to me, but what do I
know.)

db