"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Well, unless things have changed in recent versions of the standard
> and I've missed the change, a series of characters enclosed in
> apostrophes is what the standard calls a "character string literal"
> and defines it to be be related to character based types such as
> varchar.
That still seems to be the case in the draft of the 2003 standard I
have:
<general literal> ::=
<character string literal>
| <national character string literal>
| <Unicode character string literal>
| <binary string literal>
| <datetime literal>
| <interval literal>
| <boolean literal>
<character string literal> ::=
[ <introducer><character set specification> ]
<quote> [ <character representation>... ] <quote>
[ { <separator> <quote> [ <character representation>... ] <quote>
}... ]
The ball's in your court to show something in the standard to say that
a character string literal is ever *not* to be taken as a character
string.
-Kevin