Re: SQL Implementation

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when bbadour_at_golden.net (Bob Badour) would write:
> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne_at_acm.org> wrote in message news:<blq8h0$fbg2m$1_at_ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> In the last exciting episode, bbadour_at_golden.net (Bob Badour) wrote:
>> > "Ryan" <rgaffuri_at_cox.net> wrote in message news:<fQleb.32913$0Z5.25360_at_lakeread03>...
>> >> How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are
>> >> certified. Will they be?
>> >
>> > More importantly, why would you want them to implement SQL99 ?
>>
>> Presumably because it was a more recent and more "functional" set of
>> specifications than the previous standards.
>
> It's certainly a more recent document and adds a lot of complexity.
> Presuming greater functionality presumes much.
>
>> Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
>> explaining why...
>
> It's regressive.

I was expecting to see more than two words in explanation. That's not any better than responding to the one word "Why?" with "Because", leaving everyone none the wiser.

"It's regressive" is not much of an explanation. In fact, I can't see any useful difference between "It's regressive" and not bothering to respond at all.

-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "_at_" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/
Do you know where your towel is?