> Or are the references for external tools (IBExpert, Database
> Workbench...)?
>
>
> If we are talking about external tools, then I must candidly say that we
> shouldn't be worrying about them. Regardless of the name
> selected/agreed upon, we need to make a decision which is best for the
> *product* (Firebird), period!
>
> If the external tool makers have a problem, let *them* come forward and
> advocate why we need to use a "less appropriate" name to help them solve
> a problem with their bad/poor parser(s) -- after all, their poor tool is
> not our problem!
>
> Given that the tool makers were able to add support for "CREATE OR
> ALTER", I can't see why "INSERT OR UPDATE" would pose any greater
> challenge.

Agreed.

> (I would say the same of the FB parser itself -- if it is not up to the
> task, then a better on must be found! New features and logical syntax
> should not be bound by dumb routines)
>
>
> Finally, while I can't say that all tool makers follow this list, I
> known that Martijn has been following this discussion, and I'm sure that
> he would have voice his concerns about any of the names discussed.

Don't worry ;-) ... I'll raise flags when I think I should.

> (If he could stop drinking the beers in the hotel bar long enough to
> write a coherent sentence! ;-]]] Sorry, I wasn't able to join you
> again this year!)

Coherent, smoherent ;)

--
Martijn