SQL formatting improvements

The SQL query formatting facility is very handy but I do still find myself correcting a number of alignment issues manually, which on a large script can be a lot of edits and usually results in me editing seperately in vim. I was hoping we could have 2 changes to the formatting options, which would eliminate almost all corrections: 1. Indent the "ON" clause. When enabled, this ability would convert this: +        select *+ +        from sys.tables t+ +        join sys.columns c+ +        on t.object_id = c.object_id+ +          and c.name like 'audit_when'+ to this: +        select *+ +        from sys.tables t+ +        join sys.columns c+ +          on t.object_id = c.object_id+ +          and c.name like 'audit_when'+ 2. Allow "Alignment on Commas" to have the extra option "except inside IN operator". When enabled, this ability would convert this: +        select c.object_id+ +        , c.name+ +        , c.user_type_id+ +        , c.max_length+ +        from sys.columns c+ +        where c.name in ('audit_when'+ +                                        , 'audit_who')+ to this: +        select c.object_id+ +        , c.name+ +        , c.user_type_id+ +        , c.max_length+ +        from sys.columns c+ +        where c.name in ('audit_when', 'audit_who')+ I notice that the "Alignment on Commas" option is already ignored when inside brackets of t-sql functions like CHECKSUM, COALESCE, etc so I hope it should be simple to give the option to do the same for IN.

Hi Vince, Thanks for the suggestions. We will not have the time to do anything with the SQL Formatter for 9.0, but I have registered your suggestions so we may have a look at them, along with others, later. Best Regards, Hans

Thanks Roger, Another possible improvement to consider when the SQL Formatting does get an overhaul would be "Indent 1st list item", which would convert: +      select distinct top 100 1+ +      , 2+ +      , 3+ +      , 4+ +      , 5+ to: +      select distinct top 100+ +        1+ +      , 2+ +      , 3+ +      , 4+ +      , 5+

Hi Vince, I've registered that suggestion as well. Thanks, Hans