Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:

>I couldn't agree more. We could use something like :=: that can't be
>confused with most languages but the meaning will be always obscure. An
>explicit name helps.
>
>

Every operator in SQL is used for something else in some language.
Screwing up a SQL extention to avoid another cross language overlap
makes no sense at. An infix keyword is a possibility as is a builtin
boolean valued function known to the parser.

I continue to believe that == is the best of non-terrific alternatives.

>The problem would be worse if someone read Borland's IB documentation where
>they include the == operator as natively allowed being the same than =.
>
>
>

Whether or not it appears in the documentation, it doesn't appear in the
code.

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376