Jim Nasby-5 wrote > On 10/3/14, 4:02 PM, David G Johnston wrote: >> Should we also allow: >> >> SELECT >> , col1 >> , col2 >> , col3 >> FROM ... >> >> ? > I would say yes, if we're going to do this. I don't see it being any worse > than trailing commas. > > If we are going to do this, we need to do it EVERYWHERE. > > FWIW, the way I normally "work around" this problem is: > > SELECT > blah > , foo > , bar > , baz > > In my experience, it's quite uncommon to mess with the first item in the > list, which mostly eliminates the issue. A missing leading comma is also > MUCH easier to spot than a missing trailing comma.
do you know, so this feature is a proprietary and it is not based on ANSI/SQL? Any user, that use this feature and will to port to other database will hate it.
Jim Nasby-5 wrote > On 10/3/14, 4:02 PM, David G Johnston wrote: >> Should we also allow: >> >> SELECT >> , col1 >> , col2 >> , col3 >> FROM ... >> >> ? > I would say yes, if we're going to do this. I don't see it being any worse > than trailing commas. > > If we are going to do this, we need to do it EVERYWHERE. > > FWIW, the way I normally "work around" this problem is: > > SELECT > blah > , foo > , bar > , baz > > In my experience, it's quite uncommon to mess with the first item in the > list, which mostly eliminates the issue. A missing leading comma is also > MUCH easier to spot than a missing trailing comma.
We might as well allow a final trailing (or initial leading) comma on a values list at the same time: