"Ann W. Harrison" <aharrison@...> wrote:

>
> If we're going to implement a feature that's part of the SQL
> standard, we should do it the way the standard specifies. From
> your earlier messages, I'd guess that you're advocating Sybase
> and MSSQL "temporary tables", which may be the greatest thing
> since the invention of the cordless mouse, but they're not
> part of the standard. Call them "dynamic collections" and
> use language that's not part of the standard, and I'll stop
> arguing.

Oracle offers both table variables and collections in PL/SQL. Perhaps this
is the reason they don't bother implementing LTTs. Or perhaps they are
exactly LTTs in everybody's understanding, but without a standard syntax. If
we won't be able to agree on LTTs, this might be a way to continue this part
of our discussion.


Dmitry