From: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
Date: | 2005-06-22 16:23:17 |
Message-ID: | 20050622162317.GA17911@gp.word-to-the-wise.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:41:49AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >But this doesn't make it easier to use - users don't just include those who
> >write it. The antecedent language of these, Ada, from which this syntax
> >comes, was explicitly designed to be reader-friendly as opposed to
> >writer-friendly, and this is a part of that.
>
> IMHO it is just needless verbiage that makes programs both harder to
> read *and* harder to write, albeit marginally so. I think there is a
> reason why Ada-style block terminators are in the minority among
> block-structured languages :)
>
> But obviously this is a matter of taste -- does anyone else like or
> dislike the current syntax?
"Like" is a bit strong. But it does make functions written in it easier
to read. And given that the primary debugging methodolofy for pl/pgsql
is "Look at it hard and see what might be incorrect" I can't see that
as a bad thing.
I'd trade a whole lot of "harder to write" for even some "likely to
work".
Cheers,
Steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-06-22 16:45:47 | Re: Problem with dblink regression test |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-22 16:04:49 | Re: User Quota Implementation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-06-22 16:45:47 | Re: Problem with dblink regression test |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-22 15:45:09 | Re: Problem with dblink regression test |