Re: Possible Feature

Daniel, IDS already has LIKE syntax, so rather than breaking an existing feature by introducing a new one (%TYPE) adding the existing one to a new place is consistent. LIKE for all intends and purposes is an equivalent to %TYPE, but consistent with the SQL Standard (e.g. CRATE TABLE LIKE). But here is a question to the general audience: The SQL Standard (and presumably IDS) has DISTINCT TYPES. DISTINCT TYPEs provide the exact same change once benefits as LIKE. In addition DISTINCT TYPEs also are more descriptive. Most languages I know of provide some sort of "typedef" and we all use it (I hope) in procedural languages. I'm hard pressed to name a procedural language that provides LIKE functionality. So what is broken in DISTINCT types that prevents them from being used as we use typedef and thus requires LIKE (or %TYPE) instead? LIKE always reminds me on that scene in "When Harry met Sally" where the lady in the restaurant says: "I want what she had!". Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab IOD Conference http://www.ibm.com/software/data/ondemandbusiness/conf2006/