Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

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.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +