Hi Claudio,

> ""dianeb77x"" <dianeb77@...> wrote in message
> >
> > I hesitate (particularly in my unclear state) to ask, but "how is this
> > opening a BCOW?"
>
> Do you even hesitate??? <g>
>
> My idea is not that I'm against what you posted, but that freedom and
> flexibility has a limit where you allow the developer to shoot
> himself/herself too easily, that's all.
>
> It's easy to make a mistake by using the table instead of the alias when

you

> have room for ambiguity. In such context, it seems safer (albeit a bit
> rigid) to enforce that if a table happens two times in a join, both
> occurrences should be qualified by an alias. When one instance is the

table

> and other is the alias, it's preferable to have two alias so you know

which

> instance you are referring to.

Even though SQL says that this query is alright, perhaps you can raise a
different error if you detect a situation where two of the same tables are
referred to. SQL says this isn't an ambiguouty, right? Well, don't treat it
like one then. Perhaps an error can be raised as something like 'using the
same table more than once, use aliasses for them'

Martijn Tonies
InterBase Workbench - the developer tool for InterBase and Firebird
http://www.interbaseworkbench.com

Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com

"This is an object-oriented system.
If we change anything, the users object."