Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> In systems that have inheritance of composite types, this is used to
>> specify which type the value is supposed to be interpreted as (for
>> example, to treat the value as a supertype).

Why don't they just use CAST() syntax for that, instead of adding this
unnecessary syntax wart?

If their complaint is that CAST() is too much typing, perhaps they
could adopt :: cast notation ;-)

> I think we should fix it now. Quick thought: maybe we could use FOR
> instead of AS: select myfunc(7 for a, 6 for b);

I'm afraid FOR doesn't work either; it'll create a conflict with the
spec-defined SUBSTRING(x FOR y) syntax.

regards, tom lane