| From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |
| Date: | 2008-08-16 18:09:55 |
| Message-ID: | 0097CE73-D249-4452-BB11-2A5C698EDB80@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> "value AS name", on the other hand, accomplishes the same in a more
>> SQL-looking fashion with no new reserved word (since AS is already
>> fully reserved).
>
> would it be more natural / SQL-like to use "value AS name" or "name AS
> value" ?
IMHO, *natural* would be name *something* value, because that's how
every other language I've seen does it.
SQL-like would be value AS name, but I'm not a fan of putting the
value before the name. And I think value AS name will just lead to a
ton of confusion.
Since I think it'd be very unusual to do a => (b => c), I'd vote that
we just go with =>. Anyone trying to do a => b => c should
immediately question if that would work.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2008-08-16 18:18:58 | Re: Replay attack of query cancel |
| Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-08-16 17:53:05 | Re: [PgFoundry] Unsigned Data Types |