Vlad,

V> MSSQL, for example, allow to use following syntax for column aliases :

V> alias = expression

I know all too well the idiosyncracies with syntax in MSSQL. I
wouldn't use it as an example.

But your point just strengthens mine: you are proposing to use the
operator that SQL Server uses for aliasing; I am proposing to use the
operator that Firebird uses for aliasing. :-)

V> It is wrong from assignment operator POV, i think, but very easy to read as you may
V> put each alias at beginning of new line and see all column names of resultset at the
V> same column position despite of how long "expression" is.

I see your point. But again, it's the same issue you have with aliases
in select statements. the name comes after the expression. I didn't
make the rules, I'm just suggesting they are followed consistently.
:-)

V> I think it will be hard to read :

V> x + y as p
V> x + y p
V> x p

No, I don't like it 100% (although I like it more than anything else
proposed in this thread), but then this is not the point. The point is
to do it the SQL way IMHO, whether everybody likes it or not.
It might be ugly in some cases, but people are going to understand it
because they have seen it elsewhere (this is also true for =, provided
the ambiguities are solved).

V> Does procedure call looks like SQL ? ;)

Yes. For one, it is verbose (e-xe-cu-te-pro-ce-du-re).
--
Nando Dessena