Re: Is this stuff really SQL 92 compliant

In article <1994Aug22.094020.114_at_cc.denison.edu> llug_kh_at_cc.denison.edu writes:
>
>That definition (stupid as it may be) was in SQL-86. Therefore, when I
>wrote a paper attempting to change it for SQL-92, there where numerous
>arguments that making between symetrical would cause an upward
>incompatibility in the standard (and in SQL implementations) that were
>unacceptable. And, that there may be applications that depend on the
>current behavior which would break if between was changed.
>
>The problem is actually worse in SQL-92, because it allows for the
>definition of collating sequences, so a program (and a programmer) may have
>no way of knowing whether x < y or if y < x.
>

When upward compatibility worries causes silliness like this, it's time to re-think the usefulness of the standard.

Yours Procedurally,

-- 
Joel Garry           joelga_at_amber.rossinc.com            Compuserve 70661,1534
These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc.
%DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push.  
panic: ifree: freeing free inodes...