On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 05:39, Curt Sampson wrote:
> Because SQL99 is non-relational in many ways, so I guess they
> figured making it non-relational in one more way can't hurt.
>
> I mean come on, this is a language which started out not even
> relationally complete!
Could you point me to some pure relational languages ?
Preferrably not pure academic at the same time ;)
BTW, what other parts of SQL do you consider non-relational (and thus
candidates for dropping) ?
-------------
Hannu