Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?

From: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
To: Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Date: 2011-10-30 22:11:33
Message-ID: 4EADCB95.7060805@darrenduncan.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Eric Ridge wrote:
> I don't actually like the term "EXCLUDING", but it conveys what's
> happening and is already defined as a keyword. I thought about
> "EXCEPT", but that doesn't work for obvious reasons, and "NOT" might
> just be confusing.

How about "BUT"?

Is that already in use by something? Its nice and short and conveys the
"except" meaning.

And there is already precedent for using that word for this purpose.

CJ Date already uses "ALL BUT" in his literature as a modifier to his
illustrative relation projection syntax to give the complementary projection,
like with "r{x,y}" vs "r{all but x,y}".

Also, a more tenuous connection, Larry Wall likes "but" as logical modifier.

-- Darren Duncan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Eric Ridge 2011-10-30 22:17:35 Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Previous Message Eric Ridge 2011-10-30 21:12:39 Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?