> actually, wouldn't returning a rowid be a better option than first(x) or
> whatever, that way the user can include the rowid in the where clause and

do

> whatever the hell they want selection wise? select * from blah where rowid
> in (1,3,5,7,9)? I'd think this would be a better option than having it as

an

> aggregate style function.

I agree 100%.
TOP etc are very specific, next thing you know you will have PAGE, LAST, etc
etc and that is not good.
As long as the ROWID is the Rownumber of the current selection and is
calculated at the end then this would be a brilliant idea.

Pete
===
http://www.HowToDoThings.com