| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
| Cc: | elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Date: | 2004-01-25 22:23:09 |
| Message-ID: | 28934.1075069389@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> I kind of like AS also now after thinking about it. The only reason for =>
> is that oracle used it, nothing else.
Peter Eisentraut pointed out to me that I'd missed a conflicting feature
in SQL99: that spec uses "value AS type" in some function-call contexts.
It's essentially a cast without the CAST() decoration. (See
<SQL argument list> and <generalized expression>.)
I'm not sure if we'll ever get around to implementing SQL99's ideas
about user-defined types; they seem pretty bizarre. But it is probably
unwise to select a directly conflicting syntax for parameter names.
So, back to the drawing board ... what else can we use?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-01-25 22:32:31 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-01-25 21:52:09 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |