Jan Wieck wrote:
>>
>> That is a sad wart that we should never have done, IMNSHO (it was
>> before my time or I would have objected ;-) ). But beyond that, = is
>> an operator in SQL and := is never an operator, IIRC.
>
> As far as I can tell, this was already in the code when Bruce moved it
> into core as -r1.1 on my behalf (before I had commit privileges). I do
> not recall if the = as alternative to := was my idea or not. But I'm
> willing to take the blame for it because it dates back to a time where
> convenience seemed important.
>
I forgive you ;=) If my worst sin were only this bad I'd be truly happy.
cheers
andrew
