> -----Original Message-----
> From: raz [mailto:raz]On Behalf Of Roland Turner
> Sent: Jueves 29 de Junio de 2000 3:37
>
> - The "pure standard SQL" stance is very appealing. In addition to
> providing a simple test for whether or not a feature "should" be
> implemented ("not in the standard? then it shouldn't be implemented"), I
> really like the idea of a database query parser that will pick me up
> immediately on non-portable SQL.

IB is almost standard. Of course, UDFs' names and parameters are extensions
and so aren't governed by any standard other than the calling convention for
them built in IB. There are some words that aren't reserved in the standard,
naturally.
IB6 can send warnings to the application through the status vector, maybe
this can signal more syntax problems by switching a value in ibconfig or by
using another dialect.

> - Provide a means for an application's SQL to be interpreted in terms of
> a specified dialect.

That's the current case between dialect 1 and dialect 3 in IB6. You have
some datatypes that only are understood in dialect 3.

C.