It would be nice if SQL::Statement covered a larger subset of the "common" SQL statements and syntax. My point was that defining the larger "common" subset would be the biggest problem (IMO).
I get nitpicky when someone tells me what I'm referring to. The many SQL standards include SQL89, SQL99 and SQL-2003. I was not referring specifically to vendor extensions; more along the lines of implementations which can be incomplete or dubiously compliant. Granted, SQL92 is the standard most often heard in discussions of compliance--but, IIRC, it defines 3 different levels of compliance.
My nitpicky-ness aside, I was simply too brief in offering a dose of reality-check to the OP, who boldly claimed he was going to add support for any ".sql file" to SQL::Statement. SQL Standards and Implementations Comparison is a good starting point for anyone thinking about extending SQL::Statement to that level.
UPDATE: reordered paragraphs
--Solo
--
You said you wanted to be around when I made a mistake; well, this could be it, sweetheart.
In reply to Re^5: problems using SQL::Statement
by Solo
in thread problems using SQL::Statement
by reneeb
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |