Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

2010/5/27 Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>:
> At 2010-05-27 08:50:18 +0200, pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>>
>> I don't see any advantage of "FOR". We can change ir to support new
>> standard or don't change it.
>
> Adopting FOR would mean we don't use AS in a way that conflicts with the
> standard. That's its only advantage. But I agree with you, I don't think
> it's worth inventing a new non-standard wart for this case.

current using "AS" isn't in conflict with standard .. look to standard, please.

Pavel

>
> I don't really like the idea of getting rid of => as an operator either;
> I'm torn between staying true to the standard and politely looking the
> other way as Tom suggested we might end up doing.
>
> -- ams
>