Ann W. Harrison skriver:

>
> On 11/19/2010 10:49 AM, Kjell Rilbe wrote:
> > Ann W. Harrison skriver:
> >> On 11/19/2010 1:22 AM, Kjell Rilbe wrote:
> >> The problem with extending the length of identifiers is just that it's
> >> a lot of work. Existing tools can still work unchanged on databases
> >> that still use short names - the API separates the field definition from
> >> buffer definitions - so the transition does not have to happen
> >> simultaneously.
> >
> > OK, great! So is is it internally in FB it's a lot of work to bump up
> > the max identifier length? Or were you referring to tools?
>
> Work all over the place, messing up what others are trying to do and
> not gratifying. Hey guys, we lived with 8.3 names for decades. Why
> can't you kids show some discipline?

It's a bit confusing with identifiers like "EmailcharencodingEmailJ8M"
and such, which ECO has to generate to be able to squeeze the real name
into the limited number of characters without causing duplicate names.

But I sympathize with you guys who do the devel work. I know it's not
fun to rework such a thing. Very tiresome and error prone. :-(

Kjell
--
--------------------------------------
Kjell Rilbe
DataDIA AB
E-post: kjell@...
Telefon: 08-761 06 55
Mobil: 0733-44 24 64