At 04:13 PM 9/10/2009, Geoff Worboys wrote:

>Although the assumptions that led to such condescension as
>"Everybody with even a vague recollection of a computer science
>course knows" continues to concern me.

Actually, when I read it, it seemed more like a post from Jim than from Ann. I've never known Ann to be condescending; otoh, I've never known Jim not to be. ;-)
Maybe Ann fixed the spelling and added the helpful tip at the end...

>> I'd also make the point that trying to solve an end-user's
>> problem by conducting an emotive discussion about how
>> Firebird should change to behave more like Access or MySQL
>> is intrusive and off-topic in this list.
>
>I must have missed that one.

It's a reference to OP and others who expressed the belief that because "other databases" [database engines] could do it, Firebird should. The only engines I've encountered that can do it (in the manner the OP described) are ISAM-style multi-file data managers that pose as SQL engines by presenting with an SQL-like layer that passes SQL requests to an underlying desktop QBE engine. "Access or MySQL" was just a quick way to say all that. I could have said Paradox, Informix, DBase, FoxPro.....

./heLen