At 09:25 PM 3/24/01 -0000, dianeb77@... wrote:

>
>According to the SQL standard, all constraints have names -- either
>explicit names assigned lovingly by the user, or implicit names
>generated by the vendor.
>

Hmmm. This sounds very committee-like -- names are required to
drop things, we invented a syntax that doesn't include names, so
a conforming product must invent a non-standard convention. Or
did I miss something? I believe T.S. Eliot addressed this problem,
but only in cats.

Does the standard devulge how the vendor is to disclose the
implicit inner names? Or more to the point, how does one
write a transportable, standard compliant program that
creates some tables, gobbles the dependencies, and then
deletes them? I guess if all constraint names are made
explicit, then there is no problem. But why have a syntactic
variation that leads to the path of perdition? I mean,
creating syntax to drive the user nuts or to trick him into
doing something absolutely dreadful to himself is good sport,
but...

>Also, according to the SQL standard, the syntax for DROP statements
>(DROP CONSTRAINT, DROP TABLE, DROP COLUMN, etc.) includes a <drop
>behavior> clause. Drop behavio[u]r can be RESTRICT or CASCADE.
>

Ms. Brown, it is, as always, a delight to hear from yo[u].
Just remember, had you applied yourselves a little harder
in 1812, you could have nipped our spelling pecularities
in the bud.

Have a good time with Ambassador Celluci. Your loss is our
gain. Just don't take his advice on highway construction.




Jim Starkey