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

Re: Named arguments in function calls

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>,elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>,PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Named arguments in function calls
Date: 2004-01-26 16:22:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> If that was IS, then foo(x is 13) makes sense.

> I like that syntax.  For example

> select interest(amount is 500.00, rate is 1.3)

> is very readable, yet brief.

Yes, that does read well.  And "IS" is already a keyword.  We might have
to promote it from func_name_keyword to fully reserved status, but that
doesn't seem like a big loss.  I could go with this.

(We still need to check SQL200x though ...)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-01-26 16:24:01
Subject: Re: Named arguments in function calls
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2004-01-26 16:17:49
Subject: Re: cache control?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group