Ok, if a patch were submitted to the parser to allow the syntax in question would it be considered?
Dave On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 12:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Referring to > > http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/dbperl/refinfo/sql3/sql3bnf.sep93.txt > > the following grammar exists > > is the reference above valid? > > Sep 93? That would be an extremely early draft of what eventually became > SQL99. Looks like the parens got lost again by the time of the final > spec. > > Given that there's no visible functionality gain from allowing parens > here, I'm not surprised that the spec authors decided it wasn't such > a hot idea after all... too bad Informix didn't get the word :-( > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cramer Consulting ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
