Re: syntax sugar for conditional check

2016-04-01 18:57 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Alexander Ostrow <aj(at)epcylon(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I thought it would be cool to have conditional check syntax, which gets
>> converted to simple check constraint syntax.
>>
>> Here’s a gist:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/aj0strow/5a07f2ddcad324c4dac2c4095c821999
>>
>> It’s just sugar, but i think it would make check constraints easier to
>> read, and easier to write without backwards boolean logic.
>>
>
> For future reference please make every effort to make emails to the list
> self-contained - which has the added benefit of avoid link expiration in
> the future.
>
> As to the recommendation at hand - I don't see significant value in
> implementing non-SQL Standard syntax in this area.
>

+1

This formula should be known to all developers

Regards

Pavel

> David J.
> ​​
>
>