Is it just me, or is Sqlite3 goofy?

[mensanator at aol.com]

A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2006 10:24:00 -0700,
> 	mensanator at aol.com <mensanator at aol.com> wrote:
> > So, knowing that, would you agree that
> >
> ><quote Python Library Reference 13.13>
> > If switching to a larger database such as PostgreSQL or Oracle
> > is later necessary, the switch should be relatively easy.
> ></quote>
> >
> > is misleading if not outright untruthful?
>
> As the original author of that sentence, I don't think it's either
> misleading or untruthful; 'relatively easy' gives me wiggle room.

Ok, I appologize for saying that. Got a little carried away
by the flames.

> However, to fix your complaint, I've changed the paragraph to read:
>
> 	SQLite is a C library that provides a lightweight disk-based
> 	database that doesn't require a separate server process and allows
> 	accessing the database using a nonstandard variant of the SQL query
> 	language. Some applications can use SQLite for internal data
> 	storage. It's also possible to prototype an application using SQLite
> 	and then port the code to a larger database such as PostgreSQL or
> 	Oracle.
>
> Of course, if you accept Fredrik's reading of the SQL standard, the
> word 'nonstandard' in the revised text is incorrect; SQLite is
> compliant with the standard but in an unusual way.  (But most readers
> will interpret "nonstandard" as meaning "not like most other SQL
> databases", so I'll let it stand.)

And that was basically what I was originally asking for.

That and fixing the broken examples.

And maybe add a few more to illustrate SQLite manifest
typing which is alien to a long time Access user.

Should I start a new thread (sans polemics) to discuss the
examples?

> 
> --amk