Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > MSSQL? Are you sure? This is the example posted in this thread:
> > EXEC dbo.GetItemPrice @ItemCode = 'GXKP', @PriceLevel = 5
> > and it more matches our := syntax than => in its argument ordering.
> I think you are seriously confused, or else you are seriously confusing
> me. The => proposal is to have the ordering "param_name =>
> passed_value", just as Oracle has, just as MSSQL has "@param_name =
> passed_value", and just as the := proposal would have "param_name :=
You are right; I am seriously confused. I thought it was value =>
variable. I was wrong.
I now see the Oracle syntax matches the Perl hash assignment syntax.
The "=>" operator is helpful in documenting the
correspondence between keys and values in hashes, and
other paired elements in lists.
%hash = ( $key => $value );
login( $username => $password );
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-05-31 16:58:12|
|Subject: Re: Adding xpath_exists function|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-05-31 16:26:08|
|Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature|