Re: Ah, but who has better parties?

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message news:2cd9b0tboom6aghcs097ktkt37ti591rj2_at_4ax.com...
> Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> >Em Tue, 25 May 2004 19:01:46 -0700, Gene Wirchenko escreveu:
> >
> >> xBASE does have SQL. Talking of converting from xBASE to SQL is
> >> less than totally accurate.
> >
> > You are totally offbase. xBase as a language is not SQL, and
> >is even less relational than SQL. Not only that, xBase *products*'s

xBase is a family of languages, not a language.

> Are you being deliberately obtuse? I have said that xBASE has
> SQL, not that it is SQL.
>
> >SQL flavours and capabilities suffer from having to support
> >navigational access too.
>
> I find that having the two approaches is a strength. xBASE
> record-oriented commands are very useful with a result set.

But including navigational access would subvert the relational part. I've found many errors in some implementations by mixing the two approaches.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=