- From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:35:00 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Jon Hanna wrote: > Elliotte Harold wrote: > >> >> The first paragraph in section 1 states that SQL is Turing complete. I >> could be wrong about this, and it could depend on the dialect, but I >> don't think SQL is Turing complete, at least not in its usual standard >> incarnation. A quick Google search on "SQL Turing complete" turned up >> these: > > > It does depend on the dialect, some are Turing complete but the ANSI > version isn't (or at least wasn't at one point). Further, IIRC at least one of the Turing-complete has had Turing completeness as a design goal, making it ill-matched to how it is being used as an example here, since presumably if someone said "we should make this Turing complete" they did have at least some users using it as such in mind.
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 14:35:14 UTC