| Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Default collation |
|---|---|
| Author | Dmitry Yemanov |
| Post date | 2008-04-13T07:10:25Z |
Helen Borrie wrote:
exists in our grammar since, I believe, v2.1.
The SQL spec declares CREATE/DROP COLLATION and <value> COLLATE <order>,
and so far we comply. As you can see, it confirms my "verb vs noun"
explanation :-) But both extensions proposed by Adriano are non-standard
and we have to choose a proper syntax.
Looking at the proposed SET DEFAULT COLLATE <name>, I can see some
similarity in the standard which mentions SET COLLATION <name> for a
session. Again, COLLATION is used for a noun.
So I still think that COLLATION is a proper choice of a keyword for the
features we discuss.
Dmitry
>Both COLLATE and COLLATION are keywords in SQL2003. And the latter one
> Not to mention that COLLATE (not COLLATION or any other invention) is the keyword that *already* exists in Firebird's SQL grammar for the purpose of specifying a <collation order> *and* COLLATE is the SQL-92 keyword, to boot.
exists in our grammar since, I believe, v2.1.
The SQL spec declares CREATE/DROP COLLATION and <value> COLLATE <order>,
and so far we comply. As you can see, it confirms my "verb vs noun"
explanation :-) But both extensions proposed by Adriano are non-standard
and we have to choose a proper syntax.
Looking at the proposed SET DEFAULT COLLATE <name>, I can see some
similarity in the standard which mentions SET COLLATION <name> for a
session. Again, COLLATION is used for a noun.
So I still think that COLLATION is a proper choice of a keyword for the
features we discuss.
Dmitry