On 3/31/21 6:54 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> >> >> If using the -> notation, you would only need to manually >> inspect the tables involved in the remaining JOINs; >> since you could be confident all uses of -> cannot affect cardinality. >> >> I think this would be a win also for an expert SQL consultant working >> with a new complex data model never seen before. >> >> > I did not feel comfortable when I read about this proprietary extension of > SQL. I can accept and it can be nice to support ANSI/SQL object's > referentions, but implementing own syntax for JOIN looks too strange. I > don't see too strong benefit in inventing new syntax and increasing the > complexity and possible disorientation of users about correct syntax. Some > users didn't adopt a difference between old joins and modern joins, and you > are inventing a third syntax.
I'm with you on this: let's do it the Standard way, or not do it at all. -- Vik Fearing
