On 02/04/2013 10:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> The SQL standards considerations seem worth thinking about, too.
> We've certainly gone through a lot of pain working toward eliminating
> => as an operator name, and if the SQL standard has commandeered ->
> for some purpose or other, I'd really rather not add to the headaches
> involved should we ever decide to reclaim it.
OK, but I'd like to know what is going to be safe. There's no way to
future-proof the language. I'm quite prepared to replace -> with
something else, and if I do then ->> will need to be adjusted
accordingly, I think.
My suggestion would be ~> and ~>>. I know David Wheeler didn't like that
on the ground that some fonts elevate ~ rather than aligning it in the
middle as most monospaced fonts do, but I'm tempted just to say "then
use a different font." Other possibilities that come to mind are +> and
+>>, although I think they're less attractive. But I'll be guided by the
consensus, assuming there is one ;-)
cheers
andrew
