Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Date: 2010-05-31 15:57:08
Message-ID: 201005311557.o4VFv8V05778@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting
> >> operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely
> >> because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of
> >> that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild?
> >
> > Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then
> > variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that
> > ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the
> > variable at the end.
> 
> maybe, maybe not. Maybe just adopt Oracle's syntax - nothing more,
> nothing less - like like some others.

Yea, definitely they were copying Oracle.  My point is that the odd
ordering does make sense, and the use of an arrow-like operator also
makes sense because of the odd ordering.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + None of us is going to be here forever. +


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-05-31 16:03:40
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-05-31 15:56:33
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group