Re: Star Designor (Baby S-Designor) problem with Informix

The SQL-92 grammar is quite explicit about the order in which items should occur in a column definition. Quoting from 'Understanding the new SQL: a complete guide' by Jim Melton and Alan R Simon (Morgan Kaufmann, ISBN 0-55860-245-3), the syntax for a column definition is: <column definition> ::= <column name> { <data type> | <domain name> } [ <default clause> ] [ <column constraint definition> ... ] [ <collate clause> ] One of the valid <column constraint definition>s is NOT NULL. Clearly, the default must come before the NOT NULL in SQL-92; any other order is an extension to the standard (a not unreasonable extension, but still an extension). So, I think the problem is with the Star Designor software diverging from the SQL standard, not with Informix which follows the standard in this particular respect. Yours, Jonathan Leffler (johnl@informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> >From: Mike Lemon <mdl@interpath.com> >Date: 6 Nov 1995 19:41:14 GMT >X-Informix-List-Id: <news.18660> > >Has anyone else run into a small, though painful, problem with the generation >of Informix scripts using Star Designor (or S-Designor). > >It seems that the default clause and not null modifiers are generated in the >wrong order. Informix SQL wants the default first, then the not null, but >Star Designor generates the not null first. This gives a syntax error when >attempting to run the script. > >Is this another instance of Informix syntax digressing from the SQL standard >for no apparent reason? > >Mike Lemon >mdl@interpath.com