Erik,

>I have since read the entire thread, and my opinion hasn;t changed. You have said nothing to demonstrate that the SQL implementation of the relational model is wrong, only quoted somebody else who says the same thing (in conflict with the father of RDs).

I qouted Chris Date, which isn't just somebody. He's one of the two fathers of the RDBMS. As for E.F. CODD, I think he has the same thoughts on this, only don't have the docs to back this up, Neither Jim is able. So the only reliable reference so far is the book of DATE.

>If SQL is wrong, then this is a problem with the ENTIRE relational database world, because SQL is what they all use (as far as I know). I doubt that the VFP team is going to take it upon themselves to buck this problem.

Yes, indeed. It is a problem in the entire (R)DBMS world. I don't think that the VFP will either, but this doesn't change the right to submit this wish. IMO if they did, it would be the benefit of us all.

>>In fact VFP actually FP got famous because of pure power. I just want to extend pure speed and power.
>
>Hey, we all want this. It just looks like we all have different ideas of how VFP should get there.

I personally think we should get there by trying to be as close as can (within the current implementation of VFP) to the relational model. I Even want to see that VFP would support the Relational Language described by DATE, but I think this is not going to happend anyways.

Walter,