Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

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.

Pavel


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