Ed,

Sorry for negate the EOT, but I've got to say the following

>I'll agree that Jim is quite knowledgable about RDBMS; I'd say that you've got some serious failures of understanding if you are attempting to directly equate the relational calculus operator set used to prove the mathematical validity of relational operations with SQL, which is a partial reflection of the underlying mathemtical model.

I do not quite uderstand what you're saying here.

>Some of us have read Codd, and Date, and Ullman, and lots of other books on realtional theory and have even had the opportunity to do formal proofs of operations for database applications.

I'll be more than happy to discuss issues regarding the Relational Model with them.

>It's not worth debating with you. I leave others to judge the validity and value of your statements on their own merits. We've digressed far enough from the topic. You proposed something as a wishlist item. I said I didn't like it. You said that I needed to expand on it. I did. EOT.

I do find your input valueable, thanks for that.

>In the future, if you just want people to agree with your ideas, don't ask our opinions of them. The odds are we'll tell you, and you won't like what you're told.

Sorry if come accross a bit abbrasive, but I sure like these discussion and gives me more input coming from practise. And I really enjoy this debate, though you might get another impression.

I've done about a dozen of wishlist item discussions and did ask each time other peoples opinion. I didn't see a problem so far..

Walter,