You might be right. It might be a good thing though. If nobody wants the compliance/efficiency version then the other branch isn't burdened with all the compliance code.
It's DRH's decision and I've put in my two cents worth. Hopefully nobody has gone away with hard feelings. On 11/3/05, Fred Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hate to duplicate code! How 'bout looking at a "STRICT SQL" Pragma? > Still sounds like a lot of work, and some level of footprint bloat, but > at least work continues on a single code base. I predict that both > branches of the proposed spilt will suffer and one or both will > eventually wither and die. > > Fred > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jay Sprenkle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 9:35 AM > > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org > > Subject: Re: [sqlite] type confusion > > > > > > Since SQL conformance is hard to legitimately define (Are we > > going to conform to cj date, mysql, oracle, etc.) you're right, > > it would be hard. > > > > I believe my original suggestion still has value: > > > > If DRH is going to radically change SQLite (removing/redefining typing > > and redoing the expression evaluation) then a split/branch is > > valuable. > > > > Freeze the existing code in place for people who want conformance > > or efficiency. That isn't a significant amount of work. If > > DRH wants it can be > > updated with code changes from his active development branch. > > I'd be willing to contribute to the old branch since it has > > value to me. > > > > Since the new branch is NOT significantly like SQL it should get > > a new name. Maybe "ObjectBase" (or insert your own name here). > > I'm ignoring "branding" issues for the sake of a descriptive moniker. > > > > DRH gets what he wants, the people doing embedded and conversion > > projects get what they want. It's not a significant amount of > > extra work > > unless DRH wants to make it so. The design goals of both projects are > > clearly spelled out. Both groups are supplied with a tool > > that doesn't do everything well, but does what it does very well. > > > > > > On 11/3/05, Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Your suggestions would require a lot of work. Considering this > > > free software I thought you would like to spearhead this SQL > > > conformance effort. I think it would be very valuable. > > > > > > --- Jay Sprenkle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > We look forward to your standards compliance branch, Jay. > > > > > Please tell us when we can expect to download your version. > > > > > > > > DRH suggested a change, I put in my two cents since his message > > > > included a call for commentary. If you don't like the > > suggestion please > > > > feel free to ignore it or give a reasonable explanation > > of why it's not a > > > > good idea. I don't believe insults are a reasonable > > response? Do you? > > > > Do you have anything positive to contribute? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > -- > > --- > > The Castles of Dereth Calendar: a tour of the art and architecture of > > Asheron's Call > > http://www.lulu.com/content/77264 > > -- --- The Castles of Dereth Calendar: a tour of the art and architecture of Asheron's Call http://www.lulu.com/content/77264
