> I don't think that adding functions to the core engine will slow it. Also,
> in a 1 mega library you can add a lot of functionalities.

I agree but, I think that one of our strengths in the market
is footprint and that we ought to be careful when adding things
that will grow it.

> I think it is a bit too early to discuss what features should be implemented
> in the next version but I am among the ones who want more functions in the
> core engine because adding " not well known " third parties UDFs can be seen
> a bit like risky assembly.

I disagree. Now is a great time to start taking about these
things. 6.0 is in stone from a feature perspective. Let's
start shaping the future.

RE: UDFs vs core functions

I think there is a balance here. I'd like to see more 'basic'
functions in the engine. My top 10 (in order) are:

str_to_blob()
blob_to_str()
sub_str()
r_trim()
sqrt()
l_trim()
str_len()
trim()
lower()
round()

> Don't you think that people would prefer a functionnality be implemented
> by Interbase rather than by a company they never heard of before ?

Perhaps we could encourage projects in the community to
develop targeted open source UDF libraries (eg. math, spatial,
multi-media, encryption, etc.) and InterBase Corp could
certify, endorse and support them officially.

Markus