Nigel Weeks wrote:

>I see your point.
>As a hypothetical scenario, if tracking changes wasn't done, accuracy wasn't
>paramount, and a counter was installed(or found to do the job) inside the
>query execution loop, and it was bubbled up to the interface via an existing
>framework that didn't requre new parameters added to function decls(as a
>non-blocking exception/message of some sort)...
>
>
>

Funny, I asked the RMS guys pretty much the same question at DEC in
1976. They said, sure, if it doesn't have to be accurate, then "13".

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376