Walt wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:dSHEh.1656$PV3.22901_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>>Walt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
>>>news:NI4Eh.1119605$1T2.260816_at_pd7urf2no...
>>>
>>>
>>>>mAsterdam wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, a reference (I like the term) is what the (i) defines ...
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>Not to tout SQL of which I know very little but I believe it or at least
>>>>some implementations, uses the keyword "REFERENCES". For all I know,
>>>>the same implementations also support "FOREIGN KEY" phrase. If that's
>>>>so, I'd be curious to know from SQL experts whether the typical
>>>>implementations require the latter to reference a "primary key" and if
>>>>the former doesn't. If that's so I'd be really curious to hear of
>>>>examples where REFERENCES is superior in practice to "FOREIGN KEY".
>>>
>>>I would be very hesitant to draw deep philosophical inferences from the
>>>choices that the designers of SQL made regarding keywords. The same
>
> goes
>
>>>for any other computer language.
>>>
>>>And I say htis as someone who likes SQL a bit more than the purists of
>
> this
>
>>>newsgroup.
>>
>>What do you like about it?
>
> It's "good enough" for a lot of purposes (to quote a post fo your from a
> few weeks back).
As is assembler. You answer is a good answer to the question: "Why do
you use it?" I asked, "What do you like about it?" Can you do any better
than an analog for "It doesn't sweat too bad for a fat chick."
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 16:08:39 CST
