Adam wrote:

> My understanding is that the above syntax you provided is not part of
> any SQL Standard. That alone does not mean it will never be supported,
> sometimes a standard takes a long time to play catch up, but it is a
> pretty good indication that one should not be expecting it to work in
> any other database.
>
> If I am mistaken and this syntax does appear in the SQL standard, then
> it could be put through as an enhancement request.

I'm not alone in this issue, and I guess this may become an recurrent question.
If I read correctly, SQL Standard here refer to SQL92 (SQL2?) which is
2006-1992=14 years old, and Firebird itself have non-standard feature. Why call
non-standard features of Firebird extensions; depreciate extensions of other
dbms as non-standard features?

IMO market force rules not sQL92 standards. Just my 2 cents.

regards,
bill