It should be strict by default. People who write code are trained to be
careful (or should be). Interactive environments can set it to lax, if they
want, for their user base.
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 11:33 +0300, David Boxenhorn wrote:
> > Could
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 11:33 +0300, David Boxenhorn wrote:
> Could we have a strict mode that would enforce quoting terms (this would be
> used in code) and a lax version that could be used in interactive mode,
> where backward compatibility is not so important?
It's possible, but the skeptic (cyni
I meant "lax mode" not "lax version".
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:33 AM, David Boxenhorn wrote:
> Could we have a strict mode that would enforce quoting terms (this would be
> used in code) and a lax version that could be used in interactive mode,
> where backward compatibility is not so important
Could we have a strict mode that would enforce quoting terms (this would be
used in code) and a lax version that could be used in interactive mode,
where backward compatibility is not so important?
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 21:29 -0500, paul cann
On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 21:29 -0500, paul cannon wrote:
> I definitely vote for reserving words that are expected to be needed
> in the future. It seems we have a pretty good chance of predicting
> most of the syntactical needs for the next couple years (especially
> with suggestions from common SQL
I definitely vote for reserving words that are expected to be needed in the
future. It seems we have a pretty good chance of predicting most of the
syntactical needs for the next couple years (especially with suggestions
from common SQL variants), and the (hopefully) rare exceptions could get
their
