Helen,

> iow, I don't think you get much bang for your buck being able to include a
> set as if it were a comparison value...especially if it would preclude
> adding a much more powerful enhancement.

what makes you thinnk that adding ranges would preclude the use of
parameters?
I for one think that the following would be a powerful construction:

where field in (:low..:high, :low2..:high2)

I agree that there is no added real functionality in it - just easier
migration from other DBMSs.

Parameters with IN can be useful, but not much unless you can also
parameterize the *number* of them, which I fail to imagine a reasonable
syntax for (an open-array data type would be needed, a clear invitation
for people to say bye to atomicity).
Ciao
--
____
_/\/ando