| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: AW: AW: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function lang uage nam esh |
| Date: | 2000-11-17 09:29:37 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368122@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Also, the grammar clause "LANGUAGE C" is actually part of the standard, so
> naming it "LANGUAGE stdC" will make it *less* standard. (Not that I buy
> Informix as being a "standard".)
I only quoted Informix, because it is the only one where I know how it works.
It might even be, that the Oracle and DB/2 interface is also similar to our "oldC",
I simply don't know.
The fact, that part of this is already in the standard (like "language c") makes me
even more firm in my opinion, that more research is needed before advertising "newC".
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-11-17 10:43:28 | Re: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language namesh |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-11-17 09:09:52 | AW: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam ( xact.c xlog.c) |