Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

I agree. It's good syntax. I think we should try hard to adopt it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company