> Referring to a page at > http://web.archive.org/web/20020926232103/http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html, > clearly dated mid-2002, Tim Gustafson effluviated:
Incorrect. I was referring to: http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html > The word "lie" is ill-chosen. Of the top 3 items in that 10-item list, two > have been implemented. The "likely to be added" statement is arguable true, > even in retrospect. To suggest that any deceit was intended or that the > statement was known to be false when made is unsupported by the evidence and > indicates either ignorance of what the word "lie" means or bad faith. Yes, "lie" was a poor choice of words. How about "confusing"? Poor choice of words aside, my point still stands. If none of the features listed on the "omitted" page are likely to be implemented any time soon, the page should say so, rather than leading people to believe that the ones at the top of the list might be implemented soon. And, indeed, it seems that someone has already removed the offending sentence. So, thanks to whoever did that! -- Tim Gustafson t...@ucsc.edu 831-459-5354 Baskin Engineering, Room 313A _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
