>
> I don't really see this as important enough to justify introducing a
> nonstandard syntax for it...
>
> regards, tom lane
Sorry to quote like this, it makes me feel like a real nerd. :)
This quote from the SQL standard (1999) has it:
8.3 <between predicate>
Function
Specify a range comparison.
Format
<between predicate> ::=
<row value expression> [ NOT ] BETWEEN
[ ASYMMETRIC | SYMMETRIC ]
<row value expression> AND <row value expression>
Syntax Rules
1) If neither SYMMETRIC nor ASYMMETRIC is specified, then
ASYMMETRIC is implicit.
2) Let X, Y, and Z be the first, second, and third <row value
expression>s, respectively.
3) "X NOT BETWEEN SYMMETRIC Y AND Z" is equivalent to "NOT ( X
BETWEEN SYMMETRIC Y AND Z )".
4) "X BETWEEN SYMMETRIC Y AND Z" is equivalent to "((X BETWEEN
ASYMMETRIC Y AND Z) OR (X BETWEEN ASYMMETRIC Z AND Y))".
5) "X NOT BETWEEN ASYMMETRIC Y AND Z" is equivalent to "NOT ( X
BETWEEN ASYMMETRIC Y AND Z )".
6) "X BETWEEN ASYMMETRIC Y AND Z" is equivalent to "X>=Y AND X<=Z".
Access Rules
None.
General Rules
None.
Conformance Rules
1) Without Feature T461, "Symmetric <between predicate>",
conforming SQL language shall not specify SYMMETRIC or
ASYMMETRIC.
2) Without Feature S024, "Enhanced structured types", no subfield
of the declared type of a <row value expression> that is simply
contained in a <between predicate> shall be of a structured
type.
--
-------- Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------
-- CompTechNews Message Board http://www.comptechnews.com/ --
-- CompTechServ Tech Services http://www.comptechserv.com/ --
---------- http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/ ------------
