On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Randall Smith wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Randall Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >>> This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
> >>> that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
> >>
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 17:33, Randall Smith wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
> > that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
> > idea.
> >
> > For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Randall Smith wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
idea.
For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but the
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Randall Smith wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
idea.
For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but the sql
standard quite cl
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Randall Smith wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
> > that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
> > idea.
> >
> > For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but the sql
Randall Smith wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
> >that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
> >idea.
> >
> >For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but the sql
> >standard quite clearly
Scott Marlowe wrote:
This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
idea.
For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but the sql
standard quite clearly says it's <>.
If you're relying on cas
This whole discussion is reminding me of one of my personal mantras, and
that is that relying on "artifacts" of behaviour is generally a bad
idea.
For instance, many databases accept != for not equal, but the sql
standard quite clearly says it's <>.
If you're relying on case folding meaning that
Ted Byers wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Randall Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'll give the pghackers forum a visit and since I'm already on the
subject here, I'll make a direct comparison of the situation.
Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser is known to have poor
support fo
