On 1/16/21 4:32 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 1/16/21 2:02 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> I am in favor of such a change so that we can also accept 1_000_000
>> which currently parses as "1 AS _000_000" (which also isn't compliant
>> because identifiers cannot start with an underscore, but I don't want to
>> take it that far).
>>
>> It would also allow us to have 0xdead_beef, 0o_777, and 0b1010_0000_1110
>> without most of it being interpreted as an alias.
>
> That would be a nice feature. Is it part of the SQL standard?
Yes, all of that is in the standard.
--
Vik Fearing
