Martijn,

>> Nobody wants temporary tables as defined by the SQL standard;

M> What makes you say that?

I have read the lists. OK, *almost* nobody, just to cater for those
that use to answer "sure, why not?" to every feature proposal. ;-)

M> As we have seen earlier, there are several
M> database systems that implement them just like the SQL standard says
M> you should. Why shouldn't we? (now or later)

"We" (an all-encompassing "we" :-)) should, at the appropriate time
and if they serve a widespread need. That's not the case right now I
fear. I think that's Ann's point. Someone asked for something,
Firebird may provide that something and use proprietary terminology
and semantics, or provide something different using standard
terminology and semantics. Not a mix of the two.

Ciao
--
Nando Dessena
http://www.flamerobin.org