> >>Almost nothing changes except the max length of table names and the name
> >>matching rules in the BLR and SQL compilers.
> >>
> >>It seems too simple. What am I missing?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Quoted identifiers.
> >
> >"hungry.wolf" and "hungry"."wolf" will become undistinguishable.
> >
> >Unless you want to forbid some characters even in quoted identifiers.

Ah, Claudio raised my point as well... I should have read all messages
before replying :-)

> >
> >
> Dear Claudio: Why should we care? Is someone we care about likely to
> write an application where "hungry.wolf" and "hungry"."wolf" are
> expected to be separate distinct tables? And if he gets an error trying
> to define the latter, are we to cry crocodile tears?

Because "hungry.wold" was unqualified before and it should be unqualified
after.

The current system allows dots in delimited identifiers, you cannot say that
if you use a dot, you're screwed.

I'm all for backwards compatibility on this one.

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com