Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Not breaking hstore, as well as any third-party modules that might be
>> > using that operator name. ?Did you not absorb any of the discussion
>> > so far?
>> >
>>
>> In fairness most of the discussion about breaking hstore was prior to
>> our learning that the sql committee had gone so far into the weeds.
>>
>> If => is sql standard syntax then perhaps that changes the calculus.
>> It's no longer a matter of supporting some oracle-specific syntax that
>> diverges from sqlish syntax and conflicts with our syntax. Instead
>> it's a question of our operator syntax conflicting with the sql
>> standard.
>>
>> Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting
>> operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely
>> because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of
>> that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild?
>
> Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then
> variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that
> ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the
> variable at the end.

maybe, maybe not. Maybe just adopt Oracle's syntax - nothing more,
nothing less - like like some others.

Regards
Pavel
>
> --
>  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
>  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
>
> --
> 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
>