zlacker

>>legran+(OP)
Here is one example from the PDF:

    FROM r JOIN s USING (id)
    |> WHERE r.c < 15
    |> AGGREGATE sum(r.e) AS s GROUP BY r.d
    |> WHERE s > 3
    |> ORDER BY d
    |> SELECT d, s, rank() OVER (order by d)

Can we call this SQL anymore after this? This re-ordering of things has been done by others too, like PRQL, but they didn't call it SQL. I do think it makes things more readable.

>>Cianti+06
this is consistent, non-pseudo-english, reusable, and generic. The SQL standard largely defines the aesthetic of the language, and is in complete opposition to these qualities. I think would be fundamentally incorrect to call it SQL

Perhaps if they used a keyword PIPE and used a separate grammar definition for the expressions that follow the pipe, such that it is almost what you’d expect but randomly missing things or changes up some keywords