From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 16:35:32 |
Message-ID: | 201005311635.o4VGZW112075@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 :=
> passed_value".
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
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-31 16:58:12 | Re: Adding xpath_exists function |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-05-31 16:26:08 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |