Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>:
>> > Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> >> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Yea, definitely they were copying Oracle. ?My point is that the odd
>> > ordering does make sense, and the use of an arrow-like operator also
>> > makes sense because of the odd ordering.
>> >
>>
>> What I know - this feature is supported only by Oracle and MSSQL now.
>> MSSQL syntax isn't available, because expected @ before variables. So
>> there is available only Oracle's syntax. It is some like industrial
>> standard.
>
> 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.

it's not important in this discussion. Important is using some usual
symbol '=' or special symbol '=>'. Our syntax is probably only one
possible solution in this moment (there are minimum controversy), bud
semantic isn't best. Using same operator as assign statement uses can
be messy. I don't know what is a true - you have to ask of ADA
designers.

Regards
Pavel

>
> --
>  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
>  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
>
>  + None of us is going to be here forever. +
>
>