On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:37:20PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> That still seems to be the case in the draft of the 2003 standard I
> have:
>
> <general literal> ::=
> <character string literal>
> | <national character string literal>
> | <Unicode character string literal>
> | <binary string literal>
> | <datetime literal>
> | <interval literal>
> | <boolean literal>
> <character string literal> ::=
> [ <introducer><character set specification> ]
> <quote> [ <character representation>... ] <quote>
> [ { <separator> <quote> [ <character representation>... ] <quote>
> }... ]
>
> The ball's in your court to show something in the standard to say that
> a character string literal is ever *not* to be taken as a character
> string.
Huh, you're right. I'd always thought '2001-01-01' was a valid date
literal, seems the standard has required it to be prefixed by DATE at
least back to SQL92.
--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/