At 04:43 PM 6/11/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:20:15AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > nice things about PL/SQL), but I would like to note that this statement,
> > while true, is effectively meaningless. Might as well say the same about
> > perl 5 because anyone who wanted to could hack toke.c.
>
>OK, I'll put it another way: domain-specific syntax modifications
>are something we want to encourage in all cases, not just in the case
>of databases.
That's a much better way. :)
>On the other
>hand, I don't think it's worth getting bogged down in argument at this
>stage over how people can apply that concept - specific applications
>don't necessarily go in core, they're an external thing;
That's fine as far as it goes, but it is a good thing to examine likely
candidate applications to find out what support might be handy to have
available. (It'd kinda suck to have Unicode support without normalization
built-in, for example...)
On the other hand, I don't know that anything beyond:
tie @foo, SQLish, "select name, age from personnel";
would be rational--DB work tends to be either simple or wildly odd, at
least in my experience, which is why I've not gotten involved. (I don't
think there's anything that really warrants Nifty Builtin Features, but I
could be wrong)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
