> > How would it be to have an extension to the DDL syntax to avoid an

exception

> > if a DROP statement is executed and the object to be dropped is already
> > gone?
>
> Do you mean to implement it in IB engine ?
> I think such functionality belongs elsewhere.
>
> If you implement it in ib-sql-script-interpreter (i.e. client program like

isql),

> you can have much more flexible solution, e.g. possibility to
> - suppress errors completely and continue in script
> - only report errors but continue
> - stop script in case of error
> - test for errors in previous command and transfer script execution

elsewhere

> etc.
>
> i.e. implement interpreting few extra commands (on client), like
> SET ON_ERROR {CONTINUE | REPORT | [COMMIT | ROLLBACK] EXIT };
> IF FAILED GOTO Jim's_Label;
>
> Such solution works for both DDL and DML errors.

I think you entirely missed the point of my original post.

I only suggested that as a language feature (yes, in the engine) so that it
would be much cleaner to work with in the layer you are suggesting it
belongs in. What you are proposing is actually more hassle than how I am
dealing with it right now.

I agree it is fine to deal with it at the client side. It would just clean
up a lot of messy exception handling logic if you could simply have
affirmation of a condition instead of stringent execution of a particular
operation.

Isn't affirmation of a condition (IOW. accomplishing what is desired) more
important? Computer are to solve problems, not create them. I'm in this to
solve real world problems not make everyone conform to one stringent way of
doing things... I'd like to see some simple changes at the DDL level to help
accomplish that.

No big deal either way on this one.

FWIW,
Jason Wharton
CPS - Mesa AZ
http://www.ibobjects.com