I think his point was: illegal to create a view referring to a non-existing table AND illegal to later create a situation where you have a view referring to a non-existing table is logical
legal to create a view referring to a non-existing table AND legal to later create a situation where you have a view referring to a non-existing table is logical But, the existing situation where the first is illegal but the second is legal has a certain illogic. John On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:53 PM, <to...@acm.org> wrote: > > > If it indeed does matter, then shouldn’t dropping view a (in the above > > example) also drop view b, automatically? > > > > That assumes view 'a' somehow knows that it is the only consumer of 'b', > which it cannot know. Views from other db files, possibly not attached, > might be consumers of 'b'. > > > -- > ----- stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > http://gplus.to/sgbeal > "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of > those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby > Wolf > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
