> Forth and Lisp? :) Not having keywords at all is cheating :) Or, for Common Lisp at least, perhaps we can say that (,), #, ;, ", `,', :, commas, whitespace,

> Forth and Lisp? :) Not having keywords at all is cheating :) Or, for Common Lisp at least, perhaps we can say that (,), #, ;, ", `,', :, commas, whitespace, and numbers are actually the keywords, since most other ASCII chars are valid identifiers but these aren't (so you can have a variable named = or ?, but you can't have a variable named # or 1. And in that case, CL also mixes up "keywords" and identifiers just like everyone else :) . > Compare to say C where `sometype somebareword` isn't ambiguous because `sometype` is always a language keyword. But wait you say, with typedefs sometype could well be a `typedef stuct somebareword! Yep, it's a problem here too and I've been lying all along. Even without typedefs, you have a problem more closely related to "select x" VS "select distinct x" - you can have "long x;" or "long double x;". Either way, yes, I think we agree - there's a difference in quantity and stability of keywords with SQL, but not much else.