Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

2010/5/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>  writes:
>>>> How about
>>>> select myfunc(a := 7, b := 6);
>
>> If we go with that, should we make some preparations to allow => in the
>> future? Like provide an alternative operator name for hstore's =>, and
>> add a note somewhere in the docs to discourage other modules from using =>.
>
> I'd vote no.  We're intentionally choosing to deviate from a very poor
> choice of notation.  Maybe Peter can interest the committee in allowing
> := as an alternate notation, instead.

-1

I prefer a standard. And again - it isn't poor syntax - ADA, Perl use
it, It can be a funny if ANSI SQL committee change some design from
Oracle's proposal to PostgreSQL's proposal.

Regards

Pavel

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>