Bill Studenmund wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> > Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > SQL99 doesn't have tables in there
> > > AFAICT, but I think it makes sense.
> >
> > It seems to make sense but they are different and
> > our *path* is never an extension of SQL-path.
> > Where are the difference or the relevance referred
> > to in this thread ?
>
> How is our path not an extention of SQL-path? Or at least how is the path
> I've been pushing not an SQL-path?
IMHO _tables_like objects must be guarded from such
a search mechanism fundamentally. I don't object to
the use of our *path* but it should be distinguished
from SQL-path.
For example the PATH environment variable is used
only to search executables not files. Is it
preferable for *rm a_file* to search all the directory
in the PATH ? If the purpose is different the different
*path* is needed of cource.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
