On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I discussed about this form with Tom.
>
> I thing so following should be readable:
>
> name: [ optional => ] value
>
> SELECT foo( bar: 'ick', baz: 'ack' );
> SELECT foo( bar: => 'ick', baz: => 'ack' );
>
> or
>
> SELECT foo( bar: = 'ick', baz: = 'ack' );
>
> reason for optional using of "=>" is too thin char ":", so =>
> optically boost the colon.
Hrm. I can see that, I guess. In that case, though, I think I'd prefer
the colon at the beginning of the parameter label:
SELECT foo( :bar => 'ick', :baz => 'ack' );
In that case, though, I'd want the => to be required. Note that
there's a precedent here, too: This is Ruby's syntax for using
"symbols" for parameter names.
> this is 100% compatible because syntax name: is new token
Interesting. I hadn't expected that the use of the colon to make the
use of => be okay. Cool that it does, though.
Best,
David