Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

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. +