Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

Well you assign a value to a named parameter, so I don't see the point.

Now SELECT myfunc(a := 1, b => 2); is about fine, the only point is that
the => operator looks good for associative things such as hstore, so
chances that it has been used are not so low.

I guess we could choose to go with := for 9.1 and revisit the =>
situation after the SQL standard has settled on the new version. Maybe
this move would even have some impact now that we have a voice over
there.

Regards,
--
dim