David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> What I mean by "kinda" is that it's a standard way of handling
> parameters in Oracle and in DBI. I think it would be a very bad idea
> to require that people use the function name in parameters, as such
> names can be quite long. People using names like :foo for database
> objects could just quote them :)
At no point did I suggest *requiring* parameter names to be prefixed
with the function name. I just pointed to that as an established way
(which we borrowed from Oracle remember) of disambiguating if you insist
on using the same names for parameters as columns in the query.
The problem with trying to introduce :foo into the SQL grammar is that
we *already have* a meaning for :, and I do not wish to either break
array subscripting or put in the sorts of kluges that would be needed to
make them coexist (or should I say "kinda coexist").
regards, tom lane
