Re: For review: VALUES

On 22/05/12 14:50, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On May 22, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>
>> I've only read 10.2, but it seems good to me.
>>
>> The only thing I wonder about is if UNDEF would be better as UNBOUND, to match BOUND(). It's more characters, but might be more consistent?
>
> I thought the same thing, but am getting more and more reluctant to change things that we've had around for a long time…
>
> .greg
>

I have a mild preference for UNDEF - it's talking about the value.

Values aren't "bound" - variables are.  Granted it is making a binding 
for a variable but the syntax is an aligned list of values.

	Andy