2011/10/6 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>>>>> Would it then be added as an alias for := for named function parameters? Or would that come still later?
>>
>>>> Once we do that, it will be impossible not merely deprecated to use =>
>>>> as an operator name. I think that has to wait at least another release
>>>> cycle or two past where we're using it ourselves.
>>
>>> Okay. I kind of like := so there's no rush AFAIC. :-)
>>
>> Hmm ... actually, that raises another issue that I'm not sure whether
>> there's consensus for or not. Are we intending to keep name := value
>> syntax forever, as an alternative to the standard name => value syntax?
>> I can't immediately see a reason not to, other than the "it's not
>> standard" argument.
>>
>> Because if we *are* going to keep it forever, there's no very good
>> reason why we shouldn't accept this plpgsql cursor patch now. We'd
>> just have to remember to extend plpgsql to take => at the same time
>> we do that for core function calls.
>
> It's hard to see adding support for => and dropping support for := in
> the same release. That would be a compatibility nightmare.
>
> If := is used by the standard for some other, incompatible purpose,
> then I suppose we would want to add support for =>, wait a few
> releases, deprecate :=, wait a couple of releases, remove :=
> altogether. But IIRC we picked := precisely because the standard
> didn't use it at all, or at least not for anything related... in which
> case we may as well keep it around more or less indefinitely.
+1
Pavel
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>