Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mejac!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!jfr From: jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: c++ and SQL Message-ID: <25095@oolong.la.locus.com> Date: 5 Jun 91 23:13:36 GMT References: <26540@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> Distribution: comp Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles Lines: 28 In article <26540@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> marc@sei.cmu.edu (Marc Graham) writes: > >In article , cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) writes: > >|> >|> preprocessing standard on top of some other language, but rather a method of >|> using SQL that does *not* require a change to the base language that it will >|> be used with. If that were the standard, then any RDBMS with an SQL interface >|> #undef SOAPBOX_MODE >The current ANSI SQL standard includes just such a facility. It is >called the Module Language and is defined in ANS X3H2.135-1989 >and X3H2.168-1989. A module has the following format (clause 7 of >.135 and clauses 7 and 8 of .168): I believe (although I am not ABSOLUTELY certain and I don't have a copy of the draft standard lying around here handy) that the draft SQL2 standard has done away with the concept of the Module Language... It has clearly been abandoned in practice by just about everybody who is building SQL DBMSes... I do not know of any major commercial implementations of the module language in any data base system that calls itself ANSI compliant... If anyone has any contrary information, please feel free to post (or e-mail and I will post)... as I said, I am not positive, but I am pretty sure that this is the case... Jon Rosen