alvherre <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> The problem with the => operator seems best resolved as not accepting
> such an operator in a function parameter, which sucks but we don't seem
> to have a choice.
"Sucks" is not the word; "utterly unacceptable" is the word. Having an
expression mean different things depending on context is a recipe for
unbelievable nightmares. Can you imagine dealing with that in a query
generator for example? Or even ruleutils.c?
If we go with the spec's syntax I think we'd have no realistic choice
except to forbid => altogether as an operator name. (And no, I'm not
for that.)
regards, tom lane
