From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: json api WIP patch |
Date: | 2013-02-04 16:10:47 |
Message-ID: | 510FDD87.9050305@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/04/2013 10:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> The SQL standards considerations seem worth thinking about, too.
> We've certainly gone through a lot of pain working toward eliminating
> => as an operator name, and if the SQL standard has commandeered ->
> for some purpose or other, I'd really rather not add to the headaches
> involved should we ever decide to reclaim it.
OK, but I'd like to know what is going to be safe. There's no way to
future-proof the language. I'm quite prepared to replace -> with
something else, and if I do then ->> will need to be adjusted
accordingly, I think.
My suggestion would be ~> and ~>>. I know David Wheeler didn't like that
on the ground that some fonts elevate ~ rather than aligning it in the
middle as most monospaced fonts do, but I'm tempted just to say "then
use a different font." Other possibilities that come to mind are +> and
+>>, although I think they're less attractive. But I'll be guided by the
consensus, assuming there is one ;-)
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benedikt Grundmann | 2013-02-04 16:18:02 | Re: json api WIP patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-02-04 16:07:17 | Re: GetOldestXmin going backwards is dangerous after all |