🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi,

Ok, suppose (only suppose) it's not a bug, is it a good thing?
If you look all the thread you'll se I'm the only one who thinks so.

I can't understand the last sentence:
> There are too many move valuable things that R&D can spend time on to
> invest their time in making IB support mixed mode joins.

I translate it in my own spaghetti English:
 "We have so many things to work on that we cannot pay attention to this 
issue"
Is it so?

Hi,

Massimiliano

"Bill Todd [TeamB]" <no@no.com> ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:48497398@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Massimiliano Trezzi wrote:
>
>>    It's a bug and it's clear that it's not designed to be so.
>
> "As designed" means as designed by the software engineers responsible
> for the product. It may not work the way you want it to and it may not
> work the way the SQL standard says it should but, as Quinn stated, it
> does work the way the R&D team intended. Therefore, this behavior is
> not a bug. If you disagree with this please look in any dictionary of
> software engineering terms for the definition of a bug.
>
> I certainly agree with you that IB should be changed so that SQL that
> does not execute correctly either does not execute at all or that it
> does execute correctly. I do disagree with you in that I think the best
> fix for IB is to generate an error message and not execute the SQL.
> There are too many move valuable things that R&D can spend time on to
> invest their time in making IB support mixed mode joins.
>
> -- 
> Bill Todd (TeamB)