Michael Roth wrote: > We already have ?, ?nnn and :nnn: IIRC. Adding $xyz, %xyz, @xyz and > possible other ones in parallel isn't a good thing, I think. > > Maybe :xyz: is good enought and binding language neutral. Maybe @xyz. > > How this is handled in other engines? Maybe there is a > 'semi-standard'?
I agree with Michael and also Matt Wilson's previous posts. This is a good idea, but it should stick to the SQL standard way of naming vaiables; a colon, ":", followed by an identifier. This scheme is used by most other SQL engines for this purpose. It is also used in the SQL standard. There should be no need for an trailing colon, in the same way there is no trailing "$" in the experimental code. If the "$" character is used for TCL compatability, shouldn't the TCL compatibility layer be doing the required translation from the TCL parameter names to standard SQL parameter names, not the SQL parser?
