From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
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 19:38:45 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoayX576+cSTpSuivsKby+E6J-5AOR47vbeahCBudpsZ7A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> 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 ;-)
I suspect both of those are pretty safe from an SQL standards point of
view. Of course, as Tom is often wont to point out, the SQL standards
committee sometimes does bizarre things, so nothing's perfect, but I'd
be rather shocked if any of those got tapped to mean something else.
That having been said, I still don't see value in adding operators at
all. Good old function call notation seems perfectly adequate from
where I sit. Sure, it's a little more verbose, but when you try to
too hard make things concise then you end up having to explain to your
users why \ditS is a sensible thing for them to type into psql, or why
s(at)\W@sprintf"%%%02x",ord($&)@e in Perl. I recognize that I may lose
this argument, but I've worked with a couple of languages where
operators can be overloaded (C++) or defined (ML) and it's just never
seemed to work out very well. YMMV, of course.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-02-04 19:53:07 | Re: proposal: ANSI SQL 2011 syntax for named parameters |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-02-04 19:38:01 | USE_PGXS contrib build is broken |