Daniel Rail wrote:

>>I think the question should be "Do we go for full SQL2003 compliance?"
>>and make thinks that are currently limited to 31 characters move to the
>>64 character limit defined there.
>
> I don't about 64 characters, I just read the SQL Standard document
> that I have and it's 128 characters. And, yes, I know it's too late
> for FB2, but if Jim wants to do that in Vulcan, he has my support.
> Otherwise, let's try to put it in FB 3. I hit the limit when I try to
> use a more descriptive name for a table or a field, because
> abbreviations do tend to resemble each other after 250 tables.

I keep hitting the 31 character limit when porting. Not so much with the
field names, but with the Index or generator names that take the field
names and add a few characters :(

--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc.