L' Eomot Inversé (5/18/2013)
[Of course it's not a bug in SQL Server. It may or may not have been a bad choice in the standard or in IBM's original SEQUEL language definition or wherever the choice was originally made (directionality was a bad choice, end-point inclusiveness a good one, in my view), but conforming to the standard is certainly not a bug.Do you really think that end-point inclusiveness is counter-intuitive?
Nope, not at all. I was responding to the sub-discussion about whether or not "between" in the English language would generally be interpreted to be inclusive or exclusive. The biggest part of my message focused on what I believe to be the generic interpretation (inclusive) - and then I decided to show how dangerous it can be to try to find a parallel between a computer language and a human language by adding a contrasting example.
I completely agree with your assessment. I am pretty sure that a big majority of people that speak English at the same level as I do (not native but, if I may say so, better than the average non-native English speaker) would normally interpret "between" to be inclusive of both begin and end point, and non-directional. I would consider not including the end point to be counter-intuitive (and not including the begin point even more so - and please don't ask me how to define begin and end point for a concept I just defended to be non-directional, I know it makes no sense, and yet it does. To me.)