| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Date: | 2004-01-26 16:22:28 |
| Message-ID: | 7977.1075134148@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> If that was IS, then foo(x is 13) makes sense.
> I like that syntax. For example
> select interest(amount is 500.00, rate is 1.3)
> is very readable, yet brief.
Yes, that does read well. And "IS" is already a keyword. We might have
to promote it from func_name_keyword to fully reserved status, but that
doesn't seem like a big loss. I could go with this.
(We still need to check SQL200x though ...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-26 16:24:01 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-01-26 16:17:49 | Re: cache control? |