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?
Andreas
