Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature

On 27/05/10 09:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/5/27 Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>:
>> AFAIU, the standard doesn't say anything about named parameters. Oracle uses
>> =>, but as you said, that's ambiguous with the =>  operator.
>>
>> +1 for FOR.
>
> I don't see any advantage of "FOR".

Any advantage over AS? It doesn't clash with the "foo AS bar" syntax 
that the standard is using for something completely different, as Peter 
pointed out in the original post.

> We can change ir to support new  standard or don't change it.

What new standard?

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com