Tom Lane wrote:
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I kind of like AS also now after thinking about it. The only reason for => is that oracle used it, nothing else.
Peter Eisentraut pointed out to me that I'd missed a conflicting feature in SQL99: that spec uses "value AS type" in some function-call contexts. It's essentially a cast without the CAST() decoration. (See <SQL argument list> and <generalized expression>.)
I'm not sure if we'll ever get around to implementing SQL99's ideas about user-defined types; they seem pretty bizarre. But it is probably unwise to select a directly conflicting syntax for parameter names.
So, back to the drawing board ... what else can we use?
I actually rather like the Oracle syntax. As an old Ada programmer (there are damn few of us left) I feel right at home with it ;-). Perl programmers should feel quite comfortable with it too (just think of the arguments as a hash).
OTOH I understand the objections, but they don't strike me as necessarily conclusive.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
