"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> As a Perl hacker, I'm strongly biased toward =>, but I guess AS isn't
> *too* bad. At least it's the same number of characters. Is -> right out?
It's just as bad as => from the perspective of usurping a probable
user-defined operator name.
I think the fundamental problem with *any* notation like that is that
we don't have a concept of reserved words in the operator name space;
and without a precedent for it it's tough to justify suddenly breaking
people's code. As was already noted, you could damp down the objections
by choosing some long and ugly operator name, but that's hardly going
to be pleasant to use.
So I think that really this is never going to fly unless it uses a
keyword-looking reserved word. And we're not going to take some short
word that's not reserved now and suddenly make it so. So, despite
Pavel's objection that the AS syntax proposal might be confused with
other uses of AS, I seriously doubt that any proposal is going to get
accepted that doesn't recycle AS or some other existing reserved word.
regards, tom lane