Re: WIP: default values for function parameters

David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Perhaps not, but I have to say, looking at Robert's JSON example:
> 
>> SELECT json(r.foo AS foo, r.bar AS bar, r.baz AS baz, r.bletch AS
>> quux) FROM rel r;
> 
> I would be pretty confused. It looks exactly like the proposed syntax 
> for named parameters. So while syntactically they may never be used 
> together, there's a semantic mismatch, IMHO.

In my mind, you just have to think about it hard enough to come to 
realize that, when viewed from the right angle, the semantic conflict 
might not exist after all.  It's a bit tricky, but I think it's possible.