Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/5/31 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
> > Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> >> Part of the earlier discussion was about how => was a tempting
> >> >> operator name and other users may well have chosen it precisely
> >> >> because it's so evocative. But we don't actually have any evidence of
> >> >> that. Does anyone have any experience seeing => operators in the wild?
> >> >
> >> > Tangentially, I think the SQL committee chose => because the value, then
> >> > variable, ordering is so unintuitive, and I think they wanted that
> >> > ordering because most function calls use values so they wanted the
> >> > variable at the end.
> >>
> >> maybe, maybe not. Maybe just adopt Oracle's syntax - nothing more,
> >> nothing less - like like some others.
> >
> > Yea, definitely they were copying Oracle. ?My point is that the odd
> > ordering does make sense, and the use of an arrow-like operator also
> > makes sense because of the odd ordering.
> >
> 
> What I know - this feature is supported only by Oracle and MSSQL now.
> MSSQL syntax isn't available, because expected @ before variables. So
> there is available only Oracle's syntax. It is some like industrial
> standard.

MSSQL?  Are you sure?  This is the example posted in this thread:
EXEC dbo.GetItemPrice @ItemCode = 'GXKP', @PriceLevel = 5

and it more matches our := syntax than => in its argument ordering.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + None of us is going to be here forever. +