On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Simon Slavin <slavins at bigfraud.org> wrote:
> Of course that too is unlikely to happen, this time for > backward-compatibility reasons. Maybe it could be a consideration of > SQLite4. > Why keep bringing up SQLite4? AFAIK, SQLite4 has been inactive for a long time, and not much of a response anytime someone asks about it. And who's tracking all those rejected SQLite3 feature-requests (of any kind) anyway, should SQLite4 ever become active again? --DD
