On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/5/28 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>>> Peter Eisentraut<pete...@gmx.net> writes: >>>>> How about >>>>> select myfunc(a := 7, b := 6); >> >>> If we go with that, should we make some preparations to allow => in the >>> future? Like provide an alternative operator name for hstore's =>, and >>> add a note somewhere in the docs to discourage other modules from using =>. >> >> I'd vote no. We're intentionally choosing to deviate from a very poor >> choice of notation. Maybe Peter can interest the committee in allowing >> := as an alternate notation, instead. > > -1 > > I prefer a standard. And again - it isn't poor syntax - ADA, Perl use > it, It can be a funny if ANSI SQL committee change some design from > Oracle's proposal to PostgreSQL's proposal.
I agree. It's good syntax. I think we should try hard to adopt it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
