On 1/16/21 4:32 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 1/16/21 2:02 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >> I am in favor of such a change so that we can also accept 1_000_000 >> which currently parses as "1 AS _000_000" (which also isn't compliant >> because identifiers cannot start with an underscore, but I don't want to >> take it that far). >> >> It would also allow us to have 0xdead_beef, 0o_777, and 0b1010_0000_1110 >> without most of it being interpreted as an alias. > > That would be a nice feature. Is it part of the SQL standard?
Yes, all of that is in the standard. -- Vik Fearing
