On 2002-02-28 18:32:09 -0700, Sterin, Ilya wrote: > Peter, I understand, but silly or not silly, if it's the standard, I'd > rather have it followed than to fullfill someones request based on their > current need. I totally agree and you have a good argument, but the > standard is the standard, and we'll leave not following it up to the vendors > like M$ and Oracle.
You are right, standards should be followed, unless doing so is
really harmful. In this case I really don't care much (even though my
mails might have sounded as if I did), because I don't remember ever
having the problem myself. If Tim adds a convenient way to select the
non-standard Oracle behaviour I guess that's enough for most people. In
any case it should be documented so that people (at least those who read
docs) know what to expect.
I am still surprised that the SQL standard prescribes such irritating
behaviour. Seems to me that the committee "fullfilled someone's request
based on their current need" at that time and didn't think much about it
(or more likely, they standardized what most RDBMSs did at that time).
Giving the user the option to select a non-standard behaviour is a Good
Thing, IMHO. Otherwise new features could only ever really be tested
after they have been standardized (and then it's too late to change it
again, if it doesn't work well).
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | My definition of a stupid question is
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR / LUGA | "a question that if you're embarassed to
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ask it, you stay stupid."
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Tim Helck on dbi-users, 2001-07-30
msg09291/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
