>Dragan,
>
>>Frankly, I'd accept first or last, if only it was sure to behave the same each time.
>>
>>This was always a gray area, but then for the cases where you wanted one of the values for that field (and didn't really care which), this was a nice loophole.
>
>If you don't care what values are in those fields, you can wrap them into MIN() or MAX() function to make query valid.

The more I think about the cases when I needed this, the harder it is to remember them. I had to solve one using TSQL recently, and after the initial puzzlement over the "either in an aggregate function or in the Group By" requirement, I rethought the problem and solved it the way it is done now.

And it seems that I already think that way - that's called progress :).