2008/8/16 Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote: >>> >>> "value AS name", on the other hand, accomplishes the same in a more >>> SQL-looking fashion with no new reserved word (since AS is already >>> fully reserved). >> >> would it be more natural / SQL-like to use "value AS name" or "name AS >> value" ? > > > IMHO, *natural* would be name *something* value, because that's how every > other language I've seen does it. > > SQL-like would be value AS name, but I'm not a fan of putting the value > before the name. And I think value AS name will just lead to a ton of > confusion. > > Since I think it'd be very unusual to do a => (b => c), I'd vote that we > just go with =>. Anyone trying to do a => b => c should immediately question > if that would work.
I'll look on this syntax - what is really means for implementation. I thing, mostly of us prefer this or similar syntax. Regards Pavel Stehule > -- > Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 > > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
