Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:05 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is
that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad
idea in the first place. If we used $foo or ?foo or ${foo} or $.foo
or &&foo!!$#? to mean "the parameter called foo", then this would all
be a non-issue.
Yes *please*. Man that would make maintenance of such functions easier.
+1 on using $foo. Even with the standardization risk I think it's the
best choice. Prefer $"foo" to ${foo} though.
The "foo" syntax should be orthogonal to everything else and not have anything
specifically to do with parameters. Rather, "foo" anywhere is just a delimited
case-sensitive identifier and can be used anywhere that foo can where the latter
is a case-insensitive identifier.
As for the SQL standard for bind parameters, as I recall they use :foo and so
:"foo" would be the sensitive more general case of that.
-- Darren Duncan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
