5 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

You'll receive a confirmation email with a link to create a password (optional).

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Clemens Maier, Dontenwill AG commented  ·  April 27, 2012 07:33  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  We would also need the counterpart: In our ERP-Application, users can define "read permissions" as AOF-Filters for every table in the dictionary.

  To be able to use the same filters in SQL based request, we would need a SQL function like "AOF(SQL_ALIAS, AOF_FILTER_STRING)"

• synack commented  ·  August 24, 2009 07:52  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I say leave it alone - xBase is dead so there's no need to conform to it. Why are your users aware of syntax anyway? You can recreate the xBase syntax in your application but execute the SQL equivelant.

• jeremym1234 commented  ·  December 16, 2008 18:01  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I imagine we would use overloaded functions to retain the old prototypes, but provide a consistent set of new functions as well.

• graphicequaliser commented  ·  December 16, 2008 01:44  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Surely, there is too much disparity between the xBase syntax and the SQL Anywhwere syntax for this to be possible! If such a feat were to be accomplished, I would very much resent seeing any changes to the xBase syntax all my users are accustomed to. How would such a change be achieved without changes to either syntax?

• LePrince commented  ·  September 08, 2008 16:57  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I'd really appreciate this!