Jay Sprenkle wrote:
If you're going to become less compliant perhaps it would be less
misleading to remove the "SQL" from the project name. I'm not saying
either is a bad idea, just that the name shouldn't be misleading.
I think this is kind of 'purist fetisjism'. Personally I like the
pragmatic approach more: make thinks work the way you want it to work.
Btw calling SQLite not worth the letters 'SQL' is imho just lame..
If you'd be so kind, please name one (or more) SQL-based database
engines that comply to the 'standard SQL' you are expecting to see.
If you allow me to take, for comparison, MySQL. It has ignored standards
in favour of practical features ever since the project started. Still it
is one of the most populair engines.
I am sure there are possible improvements regarding type affinity,
dynamic columns etc which should all be taken into considuration. But as
far as i can see Richard Hipp's proposal seems just fine,
(backward)compatible and solves a couple of issues and inconveniences.
best regards,
Rene
