Re: SQL 89 or 92?

From: Konstantinos <noemail_at_noemail.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:44:49 -0400
Message-ID: <10o2fjcf8211fa3_at_corp.supernews.com>

I am sorry. This post was meant for another group.

"Konstantinos" <noemail_at_noemail.net> wrote in message news:10o2fcg89ce9n73_at_corp.supernews.com...
> In Access Options, this can be set. I wonder if there are any good reasons
> why someone should not use the latest ANSI standard of 92, considering
> they develop a brand new database where no old SQL code exists.
>
> Konstantinos
>
Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 20:44:49 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Neo: "Re: And again: 1NF may not be dead"
In reply to Konstantinos: "SQL 89 or 92?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message