Evgen Potemkin wrote:> both versions of syntax are supported for convenience,
also AFAIK there will
> be no conflicts.
>
How can you tell? Can you foretell what the SQL standard will create in the future?
You don't see conflicts now. There is a good chance that the standards
committee avoids conflicting with some syntax used by a major vendor like
Oracle. But your (unnecessary) extensions to that syntax will not be taken into
consideration, of course. This will increase the chances that we find a parser
conflict when trying to implement some future SQL standard construct.
Furthermore, clauses in SQL are ordered. There is no reason for allowing random
ordering of clauses in a specific statement.
Regards,
Fernando
>
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Fernando Nasser wrote:
>
>
>>Evgen Potemkin wrote:> it supports both versions: start before connect and vice
>>versa.
>>
>>>regards,
>>>---
>>>.evgen
>>>
>>
>>Why do you want to support the START WITH after the CONNECT BY if that syntax
>>does not exist anywhere (Oracle uses it before)? Adding another option just
>>increases the chances of parser conflicts in the future.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Fernando
>
>
>>>>Fernando Nasser
>>>>Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
>>>>2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
>>>>Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
>>>
>
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
