Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting > >> operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely > >> because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of > >> that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild? > > > > Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then > > variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that > > ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the > > variable at the end. > > maybe, maybe not. Maybe just adopt Oracle's syntax - nothing more, > nothing less - like like some others.
Yea, definitely they were copying Oracle. My point is that the odd ordering does make sense, and the use of an arrow-like operator also makes sense because of the odd ordering. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
