On Aug 15, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> "value AS name", on the other hand, accomplishes the same in a more
>> SQL-looking fashion with no new reserved word (since AS is already
>> fully reserved).
>
> would it be more natural / SQL-like to use "value AS name" or "name AS
> value" ?
IMHO, *natural* would be name *something* value, because that's how
every other language I've seen does it.
SQL-like would be value AS name, but I'm not a fan of putting the
value before the name. And I think value AS name will just lead to a
ton of confusion.
Since I think it'd be very unusual to do a => (b => c), I'd vote that
we just go with =>. Anyone trying to do a => b => c should
immediately question if that would work.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
