Subject: Re: RELATED-TO vs CHILD/PARENT

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:58:35 -0500

>We could, but are ';' and '->' valid SQL?
>Are they predefine or reserved to mean something already?

";" is probably not going to conflict, since it's used as a statement 
terminator (not something we need, since our statements are terminated by 
our own syntax).  "->" doesn't seem to be in the BNF (I don't have an 
official copy of the spec, though, just the one in the back of 
_Understanding the New SQL_).

>Remember - we want SQL-MIN to be a SUBSET of SQL-92.

It's not going to be, no matter what we do.  Even taking the 
PARAM(ATTENDEE,PARTSTAT) approach requires an extension: add a new 
function, and add a structured type.  SQL-MIN's syntax might be a subset 
of SQL-92's syntax; but syntax is the easy part.

/===========================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer         |
[email-masked]  |Incentive Systems, Inc.    |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.    |
|===========================================================|
|Sleep is for wimps--healthy, well-adjusted wimps, but wimps|
|nonetheless.                                               |
\===========================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:27:21 -0700

> of SQL-92's syntax; but syntax is the easy part.

SQL-92 does allow for user defined functions. So we would
be compliant.