From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
Date: | 2005-06-24 04:31:41 |
Message-ID: | 200506240031.41963.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 11:41, 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?
>
-1 on the proposal to me... ambiguous END statements just looks like trouble
to me. I'd actually rather see you implement label...END LOOP label if you
felt like you had to change *something*.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-06-24 04:38:34 | Re: Fixing r-tree semantics |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-06-24 04:28:53 | Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-24 05:42:40 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-06-24 04:28:53 | Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support |