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 <dave@fastcrypt.com> 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 <dave@fastcrypt.com>
Cramer Consulting