Adam wrote:

> I think it is time we put this issue to bed :)

SNIP

> Is it worth it, maybe, maybe not. I would personally be extremely
> worried if any of my colleagues did not know the name of every table
> they intend on querying backwards BEFORE they even thought about
> writing a query. IMO, the sole reason for this "enhancement" would be
> for improved code readability.

Since most of the good SQL editing tools give you highlighting and other
'assistance', WHAT is held in the database is a little academic. Given
the problems with RESERVED_WORDS, adding the ability to have warnings
about them in the tools is nice, so simply scrapping the "" altogether
and leaving it up to the tools to manage HOW it appears seems the best
solution all round ;)

In reality the text for a "" quoted field is "FIELD" with the quotes
just an extra allowed letter which is part of the name. Isn't FIELD then
treated as a completely different field, so any 'special' first
character would solve the reserved word problem?

--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services