""Woody"" <woody.tmw@...> wrote in message
news:002301c15d6d$958dc840$a185ffcc@popstoy...

> From: "Paul Schmidt" <paul@...>
> >
>
> Exactly. As far as I know, there is no standard for this syntax because I
> don't think there was ever a need. MS's bracket concept is used primarily

to

> allow the use of spaces in table and field names. The brackets are

optional

> in query statements but must be used if the name contains any special
> characters, such as space, hash, etc.

The standard caters for double quotes to surround identifiers and single
quotes to surround literal strings, regardless of whether it's the best
option or not.

> AFAIK, brackets are not used anywhere in the SQL-92 standard right now.

So,

> adding them for this case shouldn't hurt anything in previous versions.
> However, I am of the opinion that it would be much better for the standard
> to be changed and adopted in SQL-92 rather than just in IB or FB.

So do you want to bend the standard just to favor MS proprietary syntax?
What do we do with IB/FB arrays? Ah, don't tell me, we say users from now
they should type
array_column {position}
for getting one element from array columns even when several programming
languages use brackets. Or should we use round parenthesis like MS in VB?
:-)

> Anyone
> know how to make these types of suggestions to the great SQL gods that

write

> the standards?

Create a SQL engine.
Make it grow its market share.
Join the SQL committee.
Pay for the committee fees.
Voice your concerns and convince the other members.
Be the first to implement your enhancement if it's accepted.

C.
--
Claudio Valderrama C. - http://www.cvalde.com - http://www.firebirdSql.org
Independent developer
Owner of the Interbase® WebRing