| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Date: | 2004-01-25 21:52:09 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0401252245360.30205-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, elein wrote:
> Barring any override from the SQL200x standard,
> I would strongly suggest AS, too.
I kind of like AS also now after thinking about it. The only reason for =>
is that oracle used it, nothing else.
As I wrote in another mail, I will check out sql200x.
> > foo (13 as x, 42 as y)
The only question now is if it should be that we call the function with
the variable x AS the value 13, or if we call the function with 13 AS the
variable x. I.e.
foo (13 as x)
or
foo (x as 13)
I don't know if one is more natural then the other in english. To my
swedish ear both sounds as good. I like (x as 13) a little better, but I
don't really care much what way around it will be.
--
/Dennis Björklund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-25 22:23:09 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Previous Message | elein | 2004-01-25 21:43:25 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |