Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?

On Sunday 25 October 2009 9:17:04 am Timothy Madden wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > Can the string literal syntax for the function body in a CREATE
> > > FUNCTION statement please,
> > > please be dropped ?
> >
> > No. Since the function's language might be anything, there's no way to
> > identify the end of the function body otherwise.
>
> There is a SQL standard for this, and other DBMS look like they found a way
> ...
>
> How come it can not be done ?

I am trying to determine the problem you are trying to solve. Even if the string
literal syntax goes away functions created for Postgres make use of Postgres
specific syntax and extensions. So there is going to be a translation step
involved irregardless of the string issue. So just out of curiosty what problem
does the string syntax cause?

--
Adrian Klaver
aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net