On Tue, Mar 30, 2021, at 21:02, Isaac Morland wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 14:30, Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> wrote: > >> __ >> If the expression ends with a column_name, >> you get the value for the column. >> >> If the expression ends with a constraint_name, >> you get the referenced table as a record. > > Can’t you just leave off the “ends with a column_name” part? If you want one > of its columns, just put .column_name: > > table -> constraint -> ... -> constraint . column_name > > Then you know that -> expects a constraint_name and only that to its right.
+1 Of course! Much simpler. Thanks. > > Also, should the join be a left join, which would therefore return a NULL > when there is no matching record? Or could we have a variation such as ->? to > give a left join (NULL when no matching record) with -> using an inner join > (record is not included in result when no matching record). Interesting idea, but I think we can keep it simple, and still support the case you mention: If we only have -> and you want to exclude records where the column is NULL (i.e. INNER JOIN), I think we should just use the WHERE clause and filter on such condition. > > For the record I would find something like this quite useful. I constantly > find myself joining in code lookup tables and the like, and while from a > mathematical view it’s just another join, explicitly listing the table in the > FROM clause of a large query does not assist with readability to say the > least. Thanks for the encouraging words. I have exactly the same experience myself and share your view. I look forward to continued discussion on this matter. /Joel
