On 23 Nov 2015, at 7:41am, Dominique Devienne <ddevienne at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. It's a way of telling people who ask for features that it's not entirely impossible they'll see them in the future. Just not until a major rewrite. > And who's tracking all those rejected SQLite3 feature-requests (of any > kind) anyway, should SQLite4 ever become active again? I assume that if someone on the Dev Team likes an idea posted here they'll make a note of it. Simon.
