|Subject||Re: Standard Conformance|
Hi Ann, all,
--- In Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com, "Ann W. Harrison" wrote:
> Interestingly, the quote is "There was never a UNION DISTINCT
> option in the language." Whoever put together the matrix needs to
> work on reading comprehension.
Oh, you've got me. Now I see the contradiction between the
articles. It's really dangerous to write anything about the
standards without having the holy books really near.
In this case I must guess, that UNION DISTINCT is in SQL:99
but not in SQL:92. Anyway, it's really not the most important
feature, I concede.
> Personally, I'm much happier having us follow the needs of
> our users. If they ask for something that's in the standard,
> fine, we'll use the standard syntax and semantics. If they
> want something outside the standard, we'll check the syntax
> and semantics used by other systems and use our judgement on
> which, if any, to implement.
Very reasonable. But If I ask for feature that enable me to
use standard DDL with Firebird (e.g. nameable constraints
for domains), would this be considered a valid motive?